Posted on 02/17/2026 9:04:49 AM PST by ebb tide
Recently, Pope Leo XIV told Anglicans at an ecumenical prayer service at the Vatican that “we are already one.” This statement, if taken seriously, is not a mere courteous or diplomatic remark. It is a theological claim with concrete theological implications.
Words spoken by a pope imply principles about the nature of Christian unity, the Church, and the relationship between truth, worship, and communion. If ecclesial unity is affirmed with Anglicans – who are not in communion with the Catholic Church, who reject papal authority, and whose sacramental theology is, by Catholic standards, defective – then unity with Catholics in full communion with Rome, recognizing the Pope’s legitimate authority, professing the entirety of Catholic doctrine, and celebrating a rite canonized by centuries of uninterrupted use, surely must apply with even greater rigor.
Doesn’t Leo XIV’s treatment of Tradition-minded Catholics constitute a decisive test case? These Catholics are not attached to some novelty, nor have they formed a parallel religion. They are simply Catholics living a liturgical expression that developed organically over centuries, promulgated by popes, and inseparably bound to Catholic doctrine through the principle of lex orandi, lex credendi. Hasn’t the Church herself long revered this rite as a precious safeguard of orthodoxy and doctrinal and liturgical unity itself?
How Leo XIV treats these Catholics reveals whether his call for unity is authentic and sincere, or rhetorical and counterfeit. One who truly believes that unity precedes uniformity defends the rights of Catholics to worship freely in a time-honored rite of the Church, without condescending tolerance, harassment, or disdain. If, on the contrary, such Catholics are despised, stigmatized, or unjustly portrayed as “divisive,” then does not the proclaimed “unity” become a farce, a deception, a scam? Does it not devolve into an empty slogan? Invoked when it costs nothing, but rejected when it demands respect for true unity.
Here is where Pope Leo XIV’s honesty stands or sinks. Those preaching a Vatican II–inspired “ecumenism,” under the banners of love, peace, and unity, are morally obligated to demonstrate their sincerity by practicing what they preach. They reveal their incoherence and insincerity when selectively practicing “ecumenism” and all the post–Vatican II rhetoric surrounding it. Those genuinely seeking unity will apply this principle first and foremost toward those within the Church. Toward those faithful who hold to Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium.
Is claiming “unity” when embracing external differences while punishing internal fidelity true Catholic unity? Or is it merely cheap rhetoric used to disguise ideological manipulation? Does it not invert Catholic ecclesiology by treating those outside the Church as if they were in full communion, while excluding from full communion those who are fully within the Church? Will such an approach heal divisions? Seriously? Or will it only deepen wounds and ultimately destroy ecclesial unity by undermining trust, moral credibility, and mutual respect?
Is the issue really about unity, or is it rather about blind obedience to a new religion? Is Pope Leo seeking unity as a theological reality that edifies the Church, or a rhetorical ploy that hides a sinister, nefarious objective? How can a pope proclaiming unity with those outside the Church, excommunicate Catholics faithful to Tradition, who, precisely for that reason, are authentically Catholic?
Ultimately, isn’t the respect and pastoral solicitude – or lack thereof – Leo shows Catholics faithful to Tradition the very mirror that reveals his honesty and sincerity, or the scandalous absence of both? The ball is in Leo’s court. “By their fruits ye shall know them,” Our Lord Jesus Christ teaches (Saint Matthew 7:16). What better test is there?
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
We are one through the love of Christ and are all subject to error.
How is that complicated?
We’re no more “one” with the Anglicans than we’re “one” with the Seventh-Day Adventists or the Mennonites or the Waldensians. If you want to define unity downward to some bare-minimum acknowledgment of Jesus Christ, the Holy Trinity, the Nicene Creed, then perhaps some theoretical “unity” exists among pretty much all self-identified Christians except maybe LDS whose deviations away from creedal Christianity are extreme enough to not qualify.
“LifeSiteNews.com” had an interesting discussion (video) about a prediction that we would wind up with two bad Popes, back to back. Can’t find the specific video atm, but will post its URI if I can nail it down.
What did he actually say. I very much doubt he got up, said ‘we are one’ and sat back down. There is context around those words, what was it?
Looking at recent theology, maybe he said “we both went off on one.”
“We are one! We already are! Let us recognize it, experience it and make it visible!” he said in his homily during the celebration of Second Vespers on the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul, marking the end of the Week of Prayer.
Leo is nothing in the world but a small version of Bergoglio the terrible. He’s controlled hook line and sinker by the Lavender Mafia, the homosexual Cardinals that run the Vatican. Like Bergoglio as pope he’ll be a disaster.
“Duris mammae,” inquit feles.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.