What Leo XIV's 'complete commitment' to Vatican II REALLY means
Our explanation as to how and why we can be sure that the Holy See has been vacant since at least 1965.
Our explanation as to how and why we can be sure that the Holy See has been vacant since at least 1965.
(WM Review) – On Saturday 10 May 2025, Leo XIV set out the agenda for his reign over what he had previously called the “Synodal Church.” In this address, delivered to his cardinals, he affirmed his adherence to the revolution of Vatican II:
“In this regard, I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.
“Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from which I would like to highlight several fundamental points: the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation (cf. No. 11); the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community (cf. No. 9); growth in collegiality and synodality (cf. No. 33); attention to the sensus fidei (cf. Nos. 119-120), especially in its most authentic and inclusive forms, such as popular piety (cf. No. 123); loving care for the least and the rejected (cf. No. 53); courageous and trusting dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities (cf. No. 84; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 1-2).”1
It should be clear that this “complete commitment” applies not just to “the path that the universal Church has now followed” since Vatican II, but also to Vatican II itself.
In addition to this address, Leo XIV has also referred to the documents of Vatican II on several occasions since his election.2
What are the implications of all these statements?
This was a WM+ article.
The WM Review is free for readers. This is because we believe these ideas must reach as many people as possible.
However, we also provide WM+ articles—additional material for those who choose to support this work financially. This helps us continue producing serious Catholic research, while ensuring that the main body of material remains accessible for all.
If you want to ensure that this flow of material continues, join WM+ today.
(Clergy and seminarians can contact us for free membership.)
What is Vatican II?
Vatican II – the Second Vatican Council (1962–1965) – was a council convened by John XXIII and continued under Paul VI. It issued sixteen documents touching on doctrine, liturgy, ecumenism, religious liberty, and the Church’s relationship with the modern world.
Critics of Vatican II typically refer to the specific doctrinal problems of religions liberty, ecumenism, and so on. However, Vatican II must be understood not only as a (putative) ecumenical council whose documents contained errors, but also as the inauguration of a new era and regime.
In other words, it must be understood as the inauguration of a revolution.
While it took place in the 1960s, this “inauguratory” quality means that Vatican II is not a distant, irrelevant event: rather, we are living in its revolutionary system today. Leo XIV himself indicated the centrality of this religious revolution by invoking it on the second day of his reign.
Towards the end of his life, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre gave the following as his mature judgment on the issue:
“The more one analyzes the documents of Vatican II, and the more one analyzes their interpretation by the authorities of the Church, the more one realizes that what is at stake is not merely superficial errors, a few mistakes, ecumenism, religious liberty, collegiality, a certain Liberalism, but rather a wholesale perversion of the mind, a whole new philosophy based on modern philosophy, on subjectivism.”3
The wholesale perversion of mind can be summarised in Paul VI’s own words as the religion or cult of man:
“Secular, profane, humanism has finally revealed itself in its terrible shape and has, in a certain sense, challenged the Council. The religion of God made man has come up against a religion—for there is such a one—of man who makes himself God.
“And what happened? An impact, a battle, an anathema? That might have taken place, but it did not. It was the old story of the Samaritan that formed the model for the Council’s spirituality. It was filled only with an endless sympathy. Its attention was taken up with the discovery of human needs – which become greater as the son of the earth (sic) makes himself greater.
“Do you at least recognize this its merit, you modern humanists who have no place for the transcendence of the things supreme, and come to know our new humanism: we also, we more than anyone else, have the cult of man.4
This cult of man is manifested in:
Anthropocentrism, which holds that man becomes the measure of religion, rather than God—as manifested, for example, in Dignitatis Humanae’s doctrine of religious liberty.
Luciferianism: the adoption of the Promethean principles of the Enlightenment and French Revolution—many at the time made this claim, including Joseph Ratzinger, who described Vatican II’s documents constitute a “counter-syllabus,” and as the “official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.”5
Naturalism: the dissolution of the supernatural order as traditionally understood, whether by directly denying its existence, or extending it beyond its traditional boundaries.
The uncrowning of Christ as King: in particular, the embrace of religious liberty secularises society, dethrones Christ, destroys the liberty of the Church and relativises the first commandment and subjects it observance to the will of each individual person.
Similar ideas appeared throughout Paul VI’s reign, including in his address to the United Nations in October 1965.
The “wholesale perversion of mind” mentioned by Lefebvre can also be summarised as modernism, which Pope St Pius X condemned as the “synthesis of all heresies” in his encyclical Pascendi Dominic Gregis.
The Cult of Man is a new religion
What is a religion? St. Thomas Aquinas teaches religion “denotes properly a relation to God.”6 Abbé Damien Dutertre provides a standard definition of the three components of religion, taken in the abstract.
“Any religion is characterized by a threefold aspect: it teaches a system of philosophy or belief (‘doctrine’), it indicates a way of life (‘discipline’), and it prescribes some form of worship of God (‘liturgy’).”7
He also states a truth of reason:
“A substantial rupture in doctrine, discipline and liturgy, shows a substantial change of religion.
“This is true because (1) these are the essential elements of a religion. Hence if they change substantially, then the religion itself has substantially changed.”8
In practice, this means that if a “church” was established which retained all but one of the Church’s teachings, it would – without regard for the question of schism – constitute a new religion on doctrinal grounds alone.
But the Vatican II revolution goes further. In addition to the individual errors and the “wholesale perversion of mind” already mentioned, it has a panoply of its own doctrines, disciplines and liturgical rites – which we have seen are the three essential components of any religion. This transformation necessarily means that we are dealing with a religious system which is distinct from the Catholic religion.
Some may hesitate to describe this Vatican II system as a “new religion.” But even setting aside this label, the reality remains. Nobody can seriously question that, within living memory, the religion of our grandparents and great-grandparents apparently underwent a wholesale revolution. The resulting system teaches doctrines which are incompatible with the Catholic faith and which had previously been condemned; it imposes laws which are harmful to souls; and it offers worship that is at least gravely deficient or even invalid.
Though the new components of the Vatican II system retain a superficial resemblance to those of the old religion, they are indeed substantially different, and have served a strategic function for the religious revolutionaries: by retaining enough of the old religion’s external forms, the partisans of the Vatican II revolution have tranquillised conservative anxieties, neutralised opposition, and secured passive assent.
In fact, such continuity is deceptive. If one demolishes a house and rebuilds it, it cannot be said to be the same house – even if some of the original bricks are used. Even if it was an identical reconstruction, with all the same materials, it would still be a “numerically different” house.9 How more so if it is not identical, and made from new materials?
The Church herself cannot be demolished, but those who have presumed to deconstruct and reconstruct the true religion in this way have thereby created a new religion and abandoned the true religion in the process.
This tactic – retaining certain elements of the Catholic religion, while changing everything else – is characteristic of modernist synthesis, which Cardinal Pietro Parente defined as:
“A heresy, or rather a group of heresies, which have arisen in very bosom of the Church […] with the pretence of elevating and saving the Christian religion and the Catholic Church by means of a radical renovation.”10
Like modernism itself, the Vatican II religion has always been parasitical on the Catholic religion, drawing its plausibility from that which it rejects. It would not have been possible for this new religion to spread throughout the world without such a parasitic relationship on the true Church, which has rendered its claims plausible to those willing to be deceived.
But the Catholic religion – that religion which our forebears knew and practised – is substantially unchangeable and indestructible. The introduction of substantially different doctrines, worship, and discipline in the name of renewal thus reveals the true nature of Vatican II’s system: it is not the Catholic religion as practised under Pius XII, St Pius X, or St Pius V, merely marred by a few false teachings and harmful laws. Nor is it the same faith with a few regrettable innovations.
Nor, we must add, is it the Catholic religion transformed into something else: it is a new religion, which has separated itself from the true religion. The true religion remains intact, even if it has lost many of its officers, members, and buildings to the new religion, which obscures it by its initially less implausible claims to be the Catholic Church.
In short, we are faced with two different religions, rather than two forms of the same religion. This is why Archbishop Lefebvre wrote in Open Letter to Confused Catholics:
“Two religions confront each other; we are in a dramatic situation and it is impossible to avoid a choice […]”11
He also said in 1976:
“We are not of this new religion! We do not accept this new religion! We are of the religion of all time; we are of the Catholic religion. We are not of this ‘universal religion’ as they call it today—this is not the Catholic religion any more. We are not of this liberal, modernist religion which has its own worship, its own priests, its own faith, its own catechisms, its own ‘ecumenical Bible.’ We cannot accept these things. They are contrary to our faith.”12
The consequences of this are clear.
Vatican II is the problem, and its abrogation is an absolutely essential pre-condition for the resolution of the crisis in the Church.
What Vatican II meant for Paul VI
This analysis entails further consequences for those involved in propagating the new religion of Vatican II.
It is not possible for a true pope, or an ecumenical council confirmed by a true pope, to offer, inaugurate, promulgate, or impose a new religion. Such an idea is completely contrary to the Church’s infallibility and indefectibility.
This conclusion cannot be escaped by quibbling over ideas of infallibility, “pastoral councils,” levels of authority, or the censures to be applied to particular errors – as if an ecumenical council could indeed offer a new religion, provided it does not impose it, or touch the “third rail” of infallibility.
The same problem applies to the universal laws (including liturgical laws) apparently promulgated since Vatican II, as well as the canonisations. Canonisations are infallible, and the Church’s universal disciplinary laws are infallibly safe, in the sense that they cannot be at variance from the Gospel or the Church’s teaching, or lead a person away from the way of salvation.
While a true ecumenical council is unable to inaugurate such a new religion, an imperfect general council – a council of bishops, without the Roman Pontiff – may well fall into errors, heresy, or even apostasy.
Thus, the simplest solution to the problem of Vatican II is that Paul VI was not the pope at the time of his confirmation of the problematic documents, which mark the inauguration of the new religion.
(Whether Paul VI lost office or never held it is immaterial for the present argument.)
This is necessarily so, because the alternatives are completely untenable. If Paul VI was a true pope when he confirmed the problematic documents of Vatican II, then:
The traditional Catholic understanding of the papacy, ecumenical councils and the magisterium was false—which would mean that the Church had already defected centuries before
The above analysis of Vatican II’s revoluation is incorrect – but this analysis is not incorrect. Against a fact, there is no argument.
Therefore, again, the only solution that is possible is that Paul VI was not and could not have been the pope at the time of confirming the problematic documents of Vatican II.
This general line of argument, based on the indefectibility of the Church, was proposed by Bishop Guérard des Lauriers, and described as his deductive argument. It is, however, distinct from his “Cassiciacum Thesis,” and is common to all who have argued that the Holy See is currently enduring an extended vacancy.13 It is also distinct from arguments based around the “Pope Heretic” question, which are secondary explanations to how the Holy See happens to vacant.
However we should note that promulgating a new religion includes and surpasses any individual act or delict of heresy, as well as of the concept of “papal schism” as discussed by the theologians.
Such a monstrous abomination as this might be seen as a kind of “super heresy,” “super schism” or “super apostasy,” each of which are completely incompatible with membership of the Church and the retention of legitimate office and authority as Pope. Someone who changes the Catholic religion and imposes a new one cannot possibly be a Catholic himself.
Thus, the conclusion also follows, regardless of whether the individual errors of Vatican II should be categorised as heresies or with some lower theological censure, as well as the level of authority with which these errors were proposed.
The duty to profess the faith and denounce error
These conclusions have consequences for Paul VI’s successors.
Pope Felix III expressed the principle that “silence implies consent” – in other words, if one is silent in the face of doctrinal error, one is presumed to accept it:
“An error which is not resisted is approved; a truth which is not defended is suppressed… He who does not oppose an evident crime is open to the suspicion of secret complicity.”14
One does not have a duty to denounce all errors and all erring parties all of the time, for the same reason that one does not have a duty to “profess the faith” in an explicit way at all times.
However, a profession of faith is a strict obligation on all Catholics “whenever their silence, evasiveness, or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to God, or scandal for a neighbor.”15 This is an established principle, expressed by Canon Law, St. Thomas Aquinas, saints, doctors, theologians and moralists. In addition to this moral principle, the public profession of the Catholic faith is a condition of membership of the Church.
This duty to denounce error and to profess the faith only increases with the height of ones (supposed) rank in the Church.
What are the implications of this?
The tacit exercise of the magisterium
The theologian J.M.A. Vacant, who was the director of the Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, explained how the Church, and each individual Roman Pontiff, tacitly proposes the entirety of the Church’s teaching. His explanation is instructive in understanding the implications of the Vatican II religion for each of Paul VI’s successors:
“The ordinary magisterium of the Church fructifies these treasures [of the Faith] and offers them to her children. It does this not only when it interprets the doctrine contained in these monuments of past ages, but also when it is silent about them, and thus exercises itself in a tacit fashion.
“The Church, in fact, has repeatedly placed these monuments [of her past magisterium, as well as the works of the Fathers, etc.] in the hands of the pastors and the faithful as authentic witnesses of her doctrine. Now, since the Church is infallible and cannot go back on her decisions, all these documents are unceasingly imposed on our faith: in the same way, a law once passed and promulgated by the legislator is imposed forever on the obedience of those who are subject to it. […]
“The Church, therefore, proposes to us certain points of her doctrine in a tacit manner, by the very fact that she proposes to us others in an explicit manner. The formal teachings of the Church contain, if you like, a tacit and new promulgation of the previous definitions and affirmations which have brought these teachings into their present form. […]
“The ordinary magisterium, therefore, extends to the whole of Christian doctrine, expressing it by explicit teachings, among which the writings of the Holy Fathers and theologians play a very considerable part; it also manifests it by implicit teachings, which result principally from discipline and the liturgy; finally, it affirms it by a tacit proposition of all that has been believed since the time of the Apostles, and of all that is contained in Sacred Scripture and the monuments of tradition.16
While Vacant clearly explains the principle and its application, we do not need to rely on his own authority as a theologian. Both the principle and application, with regards to the Church, are the application of natural reason and common sense.
Paul VI’s successors have inherited his legacy
If each pope is construed as tacitly renewing the whole of Christian doctrine, as well as the magisterium and authoritative acts of his predecessors, what does this mean for Paul VI’s successors?
It means that these men must all be construed as having tacitly proposed Vatican II and its legacy as their own teaching. Each one had a duty to abrogate the Council, to denounce its religion, and to profess the true faith. The consequences of failing to discharge these duties are simple: each one has tacitly renewed the proposition of Vatican II and its new religion.
We might understand this better through an analogy with original sin and baptism. Each human person is born with the stain of original sin, which remains on his soul until it is removed in the waters of baptism. The consequence of failing to be baptised just is the continuation of the stain.
However, the issue does not end with the renewal of just Paul VI’s acts.
John Paul II is rightly construed as tacitly renewing the new religion of Vatican II, and all the other (apparently) authoritative acts of Paul VI (including those of the Roman Congregations under him)
Benedict XVI is rightly construed as doing the same, with the addition of those of John Paul II
Francis is rightly construed as doing the same, with the further addition of those of Benedict XVI
Leo XIV is rightly construed as doing the same for the Vatican II religion, as well as all the (apparently) authoritative acts of Paul VI to Francis—including, for example, the Abu Dhabi Declaration on Human Fraternity, Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, the changes to the so-called Catechism of the Catholic Church, and so on.
Further, we could also consider the tacit approval of evidently non-authoritative acts (such as the Assisi prayer meetings, or Francis’ 2024 comments in Singapore) which nonetheless call out for anathematisation and rejection. The successor who fails to distance himself from such abominations, associates himself with them.
No matter how well-intentioned any of these men may have been, each subsequent successor to Paul VI is rightly construed as continuing and renewing all the (apparently) authoritative acts of their predecessors.
The duties imposed on these men by the concept of tacit magisterium
Each one of these papal claimants already had a pre-existing duty to distance themselves from the new religion, and the aberrations of their predecessors. However, this duty is especially proper to each of Paul VI’s successors, in a way different to other men.
As mentioned, the gravity of this duty only increases with the height of ones (supposed) rank in the Church. This duty became especially acute at the moment of their conclaves, when faced with the choice of whether or not to make this legacy their own. Abstracted from the question of moral culpability, it follows as a matter of natural reason that to have done nothing when elected is to have made this legacy their own.
It will not help these men to suggest that they have also tacitly renewed the true religion and the true magisterium, as if this could neutralise or overpower their acceptance of the new religion. In such a case, what they would be renewing would be two contradictory religions, which is incoherent, as well as incompatible with professing the true religion. It is also contrary to the established principles of interpretation for such cases.
In other words, unless and until he repudiates them, Prevost is associated with all the problematic documents of Francis’ reign of terror, as well as the whole Vatican II revolution.
Explicit renewal and re-proposition of the new religion
However, Paul VI’s successors are not only construed as having tacitly renewed the proposition of Vatican II and its religion: they have each explicitly affirmed this legacy, often at the outset of their reigns.
As noted, Leo XIV has already done this, in referring to “to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades”—specifically in the way that “Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium.”
Such words refer not just to Vatican II, but also to the legacy which we have been discussing. He has also explicitly referred to the acts of Francis’ “magisterium” (including Amoris Laetitia) on several occasions,17 treated them as authoritative, and even claimed to have “felt” that Francis is in Heaven. All this also forms part of the legacy which he has accepted.
Even if each of Paul VI’s successors have attempted to “nuance” the new religion and its legacy – whether in a Wojtyłian, Ratzingerian, Bergoglian or Prevosterous direction – each one has accepted it as the inheritance of his predecessors, and has (up until Prevost) passed it onto his successors.
The principle at stake is straightforward, even if the implications are momentous:
There can be no new start unless and until Prevost himself makes that new start. It is impossible for a man to attain the papacy while he retains this legacy, makes it his own, and proposes it to the Church—whether explicitly, implicitly or tacitly.
Therefore, the rejection of Vatican II is an absolutely necessary condition for the end of the crisis in the Church, and for a man to attain the papacy.
Whether this rejection would be sufficient for a man to attain the papacy – as adherents of the Cassiciacum thesis of Bishop Guérard des Lauriers might suggest – is a separate matter. It is, however, an absolutely necessary condition, sine qua non.
Conclusion: To whom this principle does and does not apply
As mentioned above, these principles do not apply to all men in the same way.
Words are cheap: they do not create reality, and they can often obscure it.
Merely verbal claims to accept Vatican II – or its papal claimants – do not necessarily, and of themselves, affect a man’s membership of the Church or power to hold office.
In some cases, it is clear that those who claim to accept Vatican II, in fact, do nothing of the kind: their claims are merely verbal affirmations, and they do not accept the new religion at all.
In other cases, it is unclear what someone’s claim to accept Vatican II really means.
There are indeed cases where it is clear that someone really does accept the new religion. But while it is necessary to draw a conclusion or judgment in some cases (e.g., those pertaining to men claiming to be our legitimate superiors, or where we should go to Mass, whom to marry, or whom to appoint as teachers for our children), it is not necessary to draw such a conclusion in all cases. Relatively few instances call for a firm conclusion or judgment on our part. These arguments do not justify or require accusing those who disagree of being non-Catholics by that fact alone.
However, the claims to the papacy made by Paul VI and his successors (including Leo XIV) do oblige us to draw a conclusion, due to our obligation to submit to the Roman Pontiff as a matter of salvation, and as a condition of membership of the Church; and there are no grounds at all for thinking Paul VI and his successors (including Leo XIV) have adhered to the Vatican II religion in a merely verbal way – quite the contrary.
This is why we can and must conclude…
From his evident acceptance of the new religion of Vatican II, and
From his “complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades” since its inauguration
… that Leo XIV is not the Roman Pontiff.
NB: This is to say nothing of Prevost’s positive alignment with the errors previously condemned by the magisterium, discussed in the “Further Reading” section below.
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE WITH WM+!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone.
Our work takes a lot of time and effort to produce. If you have benefitted from it please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription gets you access to our exclusive WM+ material, and helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
You can see what readers are saying over at our Testimonials page.
(We make our WM+ material freely available to clergy, priests and seminarians upon request. Please subscribe and reply to the email if this applies to you.)
Subscribe to WM+ now to make sure you always receive our material. Thank you!
Read Next:
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
ADDRESS OF LEO XIV
TO THE COLLEGE OF CARDINALS
Saturday, 10 May 2025
Thank you very much, Your Eminence. Before taking our seats, let us begin with a prayer, asking the Lord to continue to accompany this College, and above all the entire Church with this spirit, with enthusiasm, but also with deep faith. Let us pray together in Latin.
Pater noster… Ave Maria…
In the first part of this meeting, there will be a short talk with some reflections that I would like to share with you. But then there will be a second part, a bit like the opportunity that many of you had asked for: a sort of dialogue with the College of Cardinals to hear what advice, suggestions, proposals, concrete things, which have already been discussed in the days leading up to the Conclave.
Dear Brother Cardinals,
I greet all of you with gratitude for this meeting and for the days that preceded it. Days that were sad because of the loss of the Holy Father Pope Francis and demanding due to the responsibilities we confronted together, yet at the same time, in accordance with the promise Jesus himself made to us, days rich in grace and consolation in the Spirit (cf. Jn 14:25-27).
You, dear Cardinals, are the closest collaborators of the Pope. This has proved a great comfort to me in accepting a yoke clearly far beyond my own limited powers, as it would be for any of us. Your presence reminds me that the Lord, who has entrusted me with this mission, will not leave me alone in bearing its responsibility. I know, before all else, that I can always count on his help, the help of the Lord, and through his grace and providence, on your closeness and that of so many of our brothers and sisters throughout the world who believe in God, love the Church and support the Vicar of Christ by their prayers and good works.
I thank the Dean of the College of Cardinals, Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re – who deserves applause, at least once, if not more – whose wisdom, the fruit of a long life and many years of faithful service to the Apostolic See, has helped us greatly during this time. I thank the Camerlengo of the Holy Roman Church, Cardinal Kevin Joseph Farrell – I believe he is present today – for the important and demanding work that he has done throughout the period of the Vacant See and for the convocation of the Conclave. My thoughts also go to our brother Cardinals who, for reasons of health, were unable to be present, and I join you in embracing them in communion of affection and prayer.
At this moment, both sad and joyful, providentially bathed in the light of Easter, I would like all of us to see the passing of our beloved Holy Father Pope Francis and the Conclave as a paschal event, a stage in that long exodus through which the Lord continues to guide us towards the fullness of life. In this perspective, we entrust to the “merciful Father and God of all consolation” (2 Cor 1:3) the soul of the late Pontiff and also the future of the Church.
Beginning with Saint Peter and up to myself, his unworthy Successor, the Pope has been a humble servant of God and of his brothers and sisters, and nothing more than this. It has been clearly seen in the example of so many of my Predecessors, and most recently by Pope Francis himself, with his example of complete dedication to service and to sober simplicity of life, his abandonment to God throughout his ministry and his serene trust at the moment of his return to the Father’s house. Let us take up this precious legacy and continue on the journey, inspired by the same hope that is born of faith.
It is the Risen Lord, present among us, who protects and guides the Church, and continues to fill her with hope through the love “poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us” (Rom 5:5). It is up to us to be docile listeners to his voice and faithful ministers of his plan of salvation, mindful that God loves to communicate himself, not in the roar of thunder and earthquakes, but in the “whisper of a gentle breeze” (1 Kings 19:12) or, as some translate it, in a “sound of sheer silence.” It is this essential and important encounter to which we must guide and accompany all the holy People of God entrusted to our care.
In these days, we have been able to see the beauty and feel the strength of this immense community, which with such affection and devotion has greeted and mourned its Shepherd, accompanying him with faith and prayer at the time of his final encounter with the Lord. We have seen the true grandeur of the Church, which is alive in the rich variety of her members in union with her one Head, Christ, “the shepherd and guardian” (1 Peter 2:25) of our souls. She is the womb from which we were born and at the same time the flock (cf. Jn 21:15-17), the field (cf. Mk 4:1-20) entrusted to us to protect and cultivate, to nourish with the sacraments of salvation and to make fruitful by our sowing the seed of the Word, so that, steadfast in one accord and enthusiastic in mission, she may press forward, like the Israelites in the desert, in the shadow of the cloud and in the light of God’s fire (cf. Ex 13:21).
In this regard, I would like us to renew together today our complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council. Pope Francis masterfully and concretely set it forth in the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, from which I would like to highlight several fundamental points: the return to the primacy of Christ in proclamation (cf. No. 11); the missionary conversion of the entire Christian community (cf. No. 9); growth in collegiality and synodality (cf. No. 33); attention to the sensus fidei (cf. Nos. 119-120), especially in its most authentic and inclusive forms, such as popular piety (cf. No. 123); loving care for the least and the rejected (cf. No. 53); courageous and trusting dialogue with the contemporary world in its various components and realities (cf. No. 84; Second Vatican Council, Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, 1-2).
These are evangelical principles that have always inspired and guided the life and activity of God’s Family. In these values, the merciful face of the Father has been revealed and continues to be revealed in his incarnate Son, the ultimate hope of all who sincerely seek truth, justice, peace and fraternity (cf. Benedict XVI, Spe Salvi, 2; Francis, Spes Non Confundit, 3).
Sensing myself called to continue in this same path, I chose to take the name Leo XIV. There are different reasons for this, but mainly because Pope Leo XIII in his historic Encyclical Rerum Novarum addressed the social question in the context of the first great industrial revolution. In our own day, the Church offers to everyone the treasury of her social teaching in response to another industrial revolution and to developments in the field of artificial intelligence that pose new challenges for the defence of human dignity, justice and labour.
Dear brothers, I would like to conclude the first part of our meeting by making my own – and proposing to you as well – the hope that Saint Paul VI expressed at the inauguration of his Petrine Ministry in 1963: “May it pass over the whole world like a great flame of faith and love kindled in all men and women of good will. May it shed light on paths of mutual cooperation and bless humanity abundantly, now and always, with the very strength of God, without whose help nothing is valid, nothing is holy” (Message Qui Fausto Die addressed to the entire human family, 22 June 1963).
May these also be our sentiments, to be translated into prayer and commitment, with the Lord’s help. Thank you!
Aside from the evident adoption of the tone of the new religion—e.g., in his first Urbi et Orbi (including the words, “we want to be a synodal Church”) and in certain choices made since his election—the following references to Vatican II have appeared in texts attributed to him:
“Trusting in the assistance of the Almighty, I pledge to continue and strengthen the Church's dialogue and cooperation with the Jewish people in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council's Declaration Nostra Aetate.”
Letter to the American Jewish Committee, 8 May 2025 (for a discussion on the authenticity of this letter, see here).
“In this way the charism of the school, which you embrace with the fourth vow of teaching, besides being a service to society and a valuable work of charity, still appears today as one of the most beautiful and eloquent expressions of that priestly, prophetic and kingly munus we have all received in Baptism, as highlighted in the documents of the Vatican Council II. Thus, in your educational entities, religious brothers make prophetically visible, through their consecration, the baptismal ministry that spurs everyone (cf. Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium, 44), each according to his or her status and duties, without differences, ‘as living members, to expend all their energy for the growth of the Church and its continuous sanctification’” (ivi., 33).
Address of Leo XIV to the Brothers of the Christian Schools, Thursday 15 May 2025.
Archbishop Lefebvre, ‘Two years after the Consecrations.’ This interview is difficult to find today, but is available here: https://web.archive.org/web/20240228183416/https://sspx.org/en/two-years-after-consecrations
Joseph Ratzinger, Principles of Catholic Theology, pp 381-2, 391. Ignatius Press, San Francisco CA, 1989.
Summa Theologica IIa IIae 81, A1.
Ibid., n. 5
Van Noort provides the following explanation of the term “numerical” and its application to moral bodies in general, and the Church in particular:
“A moral body, despite the fact that it constantly undergoes change and renovation in its personnel, remains numerically the same moral body so long as it retains the same social structure and the same authority. This should be clear from the fact that corporations like General Motors, or RCA Victor, or nations like the United States, France, or Switzerland, remain the same corporate or political entities, and are represented before national or international tribunals as the same moral body even though there is vast fluctuation in their personnel.
“Please note the word, numerically the same society. A mere specific likeness would never satisfy the requirement of apostolicity. Just for the sake of argument—even though it can not actually happen—let us conjure up some church which would bear a merely specific likeness to Christ’s Church; a church which would be like it in all respects except numerical identity. Imagine, now, that the Church planted by the apostles has perished utterly. Imagine— whether you make it the year 600, 1500, or 3000—that all its members have deserted. Imagine, furthermore, that out of this totally crumpled society a fresh and vigorous society springs up and then, after a time, is remodeled perfectly to meet the blueprints of the ancient but now perished apostolic structure.
“Such a process would never yield a church that was genuinely apostolic, that is, numerically one and the same society which actually existed under the apostles’ personal rule. There would be a brand new society, studiously copied from a model long since extinct. The new church might be a decent imitation. It might be a caricature. One thing it definitely would not be—apostolic.”
Although Van Noort is speaking of apostolicity rather than doctrine, the application is clear. When he says that a moral body “numerically the same moral body so long as it retains the same social structure and the same authority,” the implied phrase is, of course, “everything else being equal.” That his words are applicable to a “church” which has suffered substantial rupture in the three components already mentioned is both clear in itself, and defended in the body of this article.
Van Noort, Christ’s Church, n. 122.
Pietro Parente, “Modernism”, 190-1, in Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology, Bruce Publishing Company, Milwaukee 1951.
Cf. Fr Anthony Cekada’s Traditionalists, Infallibility and the Pope and John Lane’s Concerning an SSPX Dossier on Sedevacantism and Sedevacantism and Theology of the Church.
Cited by Pope Leo XIII in Inimica Vis, n. 7, 1892.
Can. 1325 §1 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law—cited as a representative witness, without regard for whether the 1917 Code is still in force.
“Do not be discouraged by the difficult situations you face. It is true that families today have many problems, but ‘the Gospel of the family also nourishes seeds that are still waiting to grow, and serves as the basis for caring for those plants that are wilting and must not be neglected.’” (FRANCIS, Amoris Laetitia, 76).
Address of Leo XIV to participants in the Seminar of the Dicastery for the Laity, Family and Life, 2 June 2025
Like Amerio said in Iota Unum: If they called it a new religion, the apostasy would be open. Instead, they retain the names/forms (eg., priest, saint, pope, council, sacrament, etc.), but empty these things of their former substances, and replace them with something else. Like taking a can of Coca-Cola, pouring it out and refilling it with gasoline, and passing it off as Coke. Same can, same label, same appearance, but what’s in it isn’t Coke..
There is little qualitative difference between declaring one’s complete commitment to Vatican II and declaring one’s complete commitment to Freemasonry, since the principles and ends of each are identical (even if couched in different terminology).
There is, however, this accidental difference:
That in the latter case, one would be recognized by the vast majority of Catholics as apostate, whereas in the former case, it is the vast majority of Catholics themselves who have become apostate.