'What we have in common'—Leo XIV and the Popes
Is it true that 'what we have in common is much stronger than what divides us, as Leo XIV said to an Ecumenical Symposium?'
(WM Reports) – Leo XIV has told an ecumenical audience that “what we have in common is much stronger […] than what divides us,” contradicting the teaching of the Church’s magisterium.
Addressing the participants in the Ecumenical Symposium, he framed shared belief in the Trinity and other basic doctrines as a foundation for eventual “full communion.”
His words came during a four-day conference hosted by the Angelicum and the International Orthodox Theological Association, which ran from 4-7 June and was titled Nicaea and the Church of the third millennium: towards Catholic-Orthodox unity.
It addressed topics such as “the trinity [sic] and incarnation, synodality and primacy, heresy and schism, the date of Easter, and other practical matters in light of the First Ecumenical Council.”
Speakers included Kurt Koch, the cardinal behind the ‘synodal papacy’ blueprint, the Anglican Rowan Williams, former Archbishop of Canterbury, and a host of academics and ecclesiastics from different confessions and sects.
The conference opened with an ecumenical service, with the “co-presiders” of Koch, Eastern Orthodox Metropolitan Job (Getcha) of Pisidia, Coptic Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Bishop Kyrillos of Los Angeles, and the former Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams.
Leo XIV delivered his address on the morning of Saturday June 7, and spoke about “the faith of Nicaea,” synodality and the date of Easter.
‘What we have in common…’
Regarding the first topic, he said:
As the International Theological Commission observed in its recent Document for the 1700th anniversary of Nicaea, the year 2025 represents…
“… an invaluable opportunity to emphasise that, what we have in common is much stronger, quantitatively and qualitatively, than what divides us.
“Together, we believe in the Triune God, in Christ as truly human and truly God, and in salvation through Jesus Christ, according to the Scriptures read in the Church and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
“Together, we believe in the Church, baptism, the resurrection of the dead, and eternal life.” (Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, n. 43).
I am convinced that by returning to the Council of Nicaea and drawing together from this common source , we will be able to see in a different light the points that still separate us. Through theological dialogue and with the help of God, we will gain a better understanding of the mystery that unites us. By celebrating together this Nicene faith and by proclaiming it together, we will also advance towards the restoration of full communion among us.
Leo XIV’s fundamental premise—that “what we have in common is much stronger, quantitatively and qualitatively, than what divides us”—directly contradicts the prior teaching of the magisterium.
The Holy Office on the ecumenical movement
In 1949, the Holy Office promulgated an instruction to ordinaries on the so-called “Ecumenical Movement,” making clear that Catholic involvement in any and all “ecumenical initiatives” should be ordered towards “helping those who seek the truth and the true Church, and protecting the faithful against the dangers which may easily flow from the activity of this ‘Movement.’”
More specifically, it ordered:
As regards the manner and method of proceeding in this work, the Bishops themselves will make regulations as to what is to be done and what is to be avoided, and shall see that these are observed by all.
They shall also be on guard lest, on the false pretext that more attention should be paid to the points on which we agree than to those on which we differ, a dangerous indifferentism be encouraged, especially among persons whose training in theology is not deep and whose practice of their faith is not very strong.
For care must be taken lest, in the so-called "irenic" spirit of today, through comparative study and the vain desire for a progressively closer mutual approach among the various professions of faith, Catholic doctrine-either in its; dogmas or in the truths which are connected with them-be so conformed or in a way adapted to the doctrines of dissident sects, that the purity of Catholic doctrine be impaired, or its genuine and certain meaning be obscured.
It also rejected, in advance, the emphasis on a limited set of truths such as those mentioned by Prevost:
Also they must restrain that dangerous manner of speaking which generates false opinions and fallacious hopes incapable of realization; for example, to the effect that the teachings of the Encyclicals of the Roman Pontiffs on the return of dissidents to the Church, on the constitution of the Church, on the Mystical Body of Christ, should not be given too much importance seeing that they are not all matters of faith, or, what is worse, that in matters of dogma even the Catholic Church has not yet attained the fullness of Christ, but can still be perfected from outside.
Pope Pius XII on St Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria
Pope Pius XII made the same points about focusing on “what unites us” in 1944, in his encyclical Orientalis Eccclesiae. He wrote:
… the much desired return of erring sons to true and genuine unity in Christ will not be furthered by exclusive concentration on those doctrines which all, or most, communities glorying in the Christian name accept in common. The only successful method will be that which bases harmony and agreement among Christ’s faithful ones upon all the truths, and the whole of the truths, which God has revealed.
Pope Leo XIII and the drop of poison
Far from appreciating what was shared in common, Pope Leo XIII’s 1896 encyclical emphasised the alienation of those who “recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine”:
The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own.
The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine: they abandoned only a tertian portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. […]
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium.
He cited, in the place indicated by ellipses, a patristic text. sometimes attributed to St Ambrose. This text, italicised below with its full context, taught what might appear paradoxical to many today, namely that the closer a heretic or heretical group is to the Church, the more dangerous they really are.
But those who share many things in common with us can easily mislead innocent minds, devoted solely to God, through deceitful association, defending their own corrupt beliefs by appealing to our good ones.
For nothing is more dangerous than these heretics, who seem to proceed correctly in all things, but with a single word, like a drop of poison, corrupt the pure and simple faith of the Lord, and, through it, the apostolic tradition.
Therefore, we must take great care not to allow anything of this kind to secretly infiltrate either our understanding or our hearing, for nothing leads to death more than violating faith under the guise of faith itself. Just as gypsum mixed with water mendaciously resembles the colour of milk, so too does an hostile tradition sneak in under the guise of a credible profession of faith.
For this reason, it is not the outward similarity of the profession of faith that should be weighed, but the intention of the mind by which the profession itself is established.1
Conclusion
These texts indicate the deep disconnect between Leo XIV’s ideology and the teaching of the Catholic Church. This is indicated further by Pope Benedict XV words in 1914, reaffirming the necessity of professing the Catholic faith as a whole, in its integrity—and dismissing the importance of holding “more or less” of the Catholic faith:
Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: ‘This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved’ (Athanas. Creed).
Leo XIV did not explicitly claim that the various heretics and schismatics before him belong to the Catholic Church.
But throughout his address, he did suggest that they have faith. This is highly misleading. In fact, faith—in the sense relevant to a discussion such as this—is the supernatural virtue by which one believes, without doubting, the revelation of God—as proposed by the Church as a necessary condition.
Those who reject the Church’s teaching as the proximate rule of faith—including the various heretics before Leo XIV during this talk—do not assent to dogma by faith, but by their own opinions.
No matter how much “we have in common,” such men are heretics, and do not have faith at all.
The difference between the supernatural faith of Catholics and the human assent of the various heretical and schismatic groups is one of kind, not degree. The impression of having more in common than not is purely superficial. Since the necessity of faith for salvation is itself a dogma,2 suggesting otherwise is false, grossly uncharitable towards those outside the Church, and indicative of a faulty understanding of faith and the Church.
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.
(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:
Italics from Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, 1896 n. 9. Text from Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos, Caput Primum. Our translation.
You know how zealously Our predecessors taught that very article of faith which these dare to deny, namely the necessity of the Catholic faith and of unity for salvation.
Pope Gregory XVI, Encyclical Summo Iugiter Studio, 1832, n. 5.
Dogmatic (more precisely: specifically regarding the stated dogmas) differences that the Orthodox Church asserts against the Catholic Church:
– Mary was not conceived immaculately, that is, Mary was born in original sin. (Mariology);
– There is no purgatory. (Eschatology);
– There is no special judgment. (Eschatology);
– The Holy Spirit proceeds exclusively from the Father, that is, not from the Father and the Son (Filioque). (Pneumatology, Trinitarianism);
– The Church has no visible head, only an invisible one: Jesus Christ. (Ecclesiology);
– There is no papal infallibility (not even regarding “ex cathedra” declarations). (Ecclesiology);
– The Pope has no primacy of jurisdiction derived from Christ, neither over the individual faithful, nor over the individual bishops, nor over the body of bishops (at most an honorary primacy on the basis of “primus inter pares”). (Ecclesiology);
– The ecumenical council is superior to the Pope. (Ecclesiology);
– The words essentially necessary for transsubstantiatio are not the founding verbs (“Hoc est enim corpus meum" ie. "This is my body.” / "Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei" ie. “This is my blood or the chalice of my blood.”), but the invocation of the soul, the so-called epiclesis, or both together. (Sacramentology);
– Priestly ordination does not imprint an indelible stamp on the soul (character indelebilis), so a priest deprived of his office also ceases to be a priest. (Sacramentology);
– For the validity of confession, it is not necessary for the priest to have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction. (Sacramentology);
– The ordinary minister of confirmation is the priest of communion, that is, the confirmation of the priest of communion cannot be tied to the permission of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, because the priest holds both the “munus” and the “potestas” for the valid and lawful administration of the sacrament. (Sacramentology);
– Marriage is dissolvable, and not only in the case of adultery. (This is especially funny when we consider that even the successive polygamy permitted by the Apostle was once rejected, branded as “indecent fornication.”) (Sacramentology);
– The sacrament of marriage is administered by the priest, and not by the spouses to each other, and the essential part of marriage is not consent (consensus), but by the priestly blessing. (Sacramentology);
– The permitted means of birth control is direct contraception.
And in addition to this, there are numerous other minor and major differences, but these do not directly affect de fide propositions.
To Whom were BXV, Leo XIII, & Pius XII's writings addressed?