Immutability vs. Ecumenism: Pope meets Anglican bishop… at what cost?

In his 1995 article, the late Bishop Bernard Tissier de Mallerais described the core conflict between Rome and the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) as follows:

“Modernist Rome has declared us schismatics because we hold a supposedly false notion of Tradition. I am going to show that it is the faithful of Tradition who have the true notion of Tradition and, consequently, that it is those who declare us schismatics, the neo-modernists, who have a false evolutionary notion of Tradition, which they call ‘living tradition.’ Tradition is essentially immutable, unchangeable: That, however, does not prevent it from being living . . . nor from undergoing a homogeneous development.”

Whereas the SSPX firmly holds to all of the doctrines taught by the Catholic Church prior to Vatican II — in the same sense in which they were taught — the SSPX’s primary opponents are generally divided into two camps: those who reject some of the Catholic teachings as they were presented prior to Vatican II, and those who might agree with the SSPX but are compelled to oppose the SSPX on the basis of obedience to Rome. In the minds of those bishops, priests, and religious of the SSPX who would rather be excommunicated than abandon their understanding of the immutable Catholic doctrine, the Faith cannot evolve in the way that Rome says it has. Only one side can be correct on this matter, and it behooves all Catholics to understand what is at stake.

Only one side can be correct: either doctrine is immutable, or it evolves. Tweet this quote

One of the fullest descriptions of the immutability of Catholic doctrine comes from the decrees of the First Vatican Council:

“For the doctrine of the faith which God has revealed is put forward not as some philosophical discovery capable of being perfected by human intelligence, but as a divine deposit committed to the spouse of Christ to be faithfully protected and infallibly promulgated. Hence, too, that meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by holy mother church, and there must never be any abandonment of this sense under the pretext or in the name of a more profound understanding. ‘May understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.’”

The quotation in the latter part of this statement is from St. Vincent of Lerins and sets forth the proper understanding of how Catholic doctrine can develop over time. Thus, doctrine can be more fully understood and explicated, but any purported development of Catholic doctrine would be false if it attempted to change the sense or understanding of what the Church had always taught.

We know from the words of St. Paul that there has always been a risk that innovators will attempt to change Catholic doctrine:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. For I give you to understand, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it; but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 1:8-12)

St. Paul insisted that no authority — not even “an angel from heaven” — should be followed to the extent that it sought to change immutable Catholic teaching. He was quite clearly establishing that if ever there is a conflict between truth and apparent authority, we must choose truth.

Whereas Pius X had significant success against Modernism in the early 1900s, Pius XII had comparatively little success in 1950. Tweet this quote

Closer to our time, St. Pius X sought to protect us against one of the most pernicious imaginable enemies of Catholic truth: Modernism. In his 1907 encyclical condemning Modernism, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, he cited both Pius IX and the passage above from the First Vatican Council to oppose the Modernist conception of truth:

“Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the Modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: ‘These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic religion as if this religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.’ On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the Modernists offers nothing new — we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX, where it is enunciated in these terms: ‘Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason’; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council . . . .”

St. Pius X would not have issued this warning if he had not witnessed the Modernists attempting to undermine Catholic doctrine. Moreover, if the Modernists’ assaults on immutable truth were easy to identify and resist, he would have had no need to condemn them so forcefully.

St. Pius X went even further to oppose Modernism in 1910, with his Oath Against Modernism, which, in relevant part, required clerics and professors to swear to uphold the immutability of Catholic doctrine as follows:

“I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.”

St. Pius X achieved partial success against Modernism, forcing it underground for a time. Unfortunately, it later resurfaced with even more deceptive subtlety. In his 1950 encyclical concerning errors of neo-Modernism that were threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine, Humani Generis, Pius XII wrote of the threats associated with the “evolution” of Catholic doctrine:

“Such fictitious tenets of evolution which repudiate all that is absolute, firm, and immutable, have paved the way for the new erroneous philosophy which, rivaling idealism, immanentism, and pragmatism, has assumed the name of existentialism, since it concerns itself only with the existence of individual things and neglects all consideration of their immutable essences. There is also a certain historicism, which attributing value only to the events of man’s life, overthrows the foundation of all truth and absolute law, both on the level of philosophical speculations and especially to Christian dogmas.”

Whereas Pius X had significant success against Modernism in the early 1900s, Pius XII had comparatively little success in 1950. Those theologians whose ideas were condemned merely lowered their voices, and waited patiently for Pius XII to die. When he finally did, these condemned theologians, including Yves Congar, emerged to help shape the ideas that dominated Vatican II and everything that has followed the Council for the past sixty years. We can allow Congar to help explain some of the changes that occurred after 1950, especially as it relates to ecumenism. Congar, Ecumenism, and the Supposed Mutability of Catholic Doctrine

Although we should deplore the disastrous influence Congar had in advancing heterodox ideas, he is undoubtedly one of the most important witnesses to what he and his fellow progressives were able to achieve through Vatican II. In his preface to the 1967 edition of True and False Reform in the Church — which Francis cited as an inspiration behind the Synod on Synodality’s work to “create a different Church” — Congar described the way in which John XXIII and Vatican II reshaped Catholic thinking, particularly with respect to ecumenism:

“In a few short weeks, John XXIII created a new climate in the church, and then came the council. This most significant breakthrough came from on high. All of a sudden, forces for renewal which had scarcely had room to breathe found ways to be expressed. The cautious suggestions for reform mentioned in my text of 1950 have been surpassed by far. What is happening right now, insofar as it is positive, is certainly in line with what I had intended, yet it goes a great deal further, well beyond what one could have hoped for in 1950. . . . But more than anything, two great changes already characterize the climate within the church and will continue to do so more and more: an ecclesiology based on the ‘People of God’ and ecumenism. . . . As for ecumenism, it has become or is on the way to becoming a dimension that touches the church’s entire life, even its internal concerns. This change of perspective will entail reinterpretation, opening and broadening out our thinking to a degree that we cannot at present measure. But this link between ecumenism and the spirit of renewal, which I perceived and emphasized from the beginning, is equally apparent now from the other side; renewal is not only required by ecumenism as a sort of prelude, but renewal is also nourished by ecumenism.”

From Congar’s perspective, the ecumenism promoted at Vatican II was transformative and touched the “Church’s entire life.” No informed Catholic can honestly deny that ecumenism purported to reshape Catholic thought; but did it do so in a way that runs afoul of the immutability of Catholic doctrine?

However, for purposes of the new ecumenism, Vatican II was the true point of departure from what the Church had always taught. Tweet this quote

We cannot answer that without knowing what the Church’s teaching actually is. In his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ludwig Ott stated the Church’s teaching as follows:

“The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (S certa.).” “Membership of the Church is necessary for all men for salvation. (De fide.).”

As discussed in a previous article, we must of course allow for an elaboration of the latter teaching to account for the idea of invincible ignorance. Taken together, these statements form the core of the Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Whether we like it or not, this Catholic teaching can never be abrogated, and any legitimate development of it must follow the same criteria described by St. Vincent of Lerins (as quoted by the First Vatican Council): “May understanding, knowledge, and wisdom increase as ages and centuries roll along, and greatly and vigorously flourish, in each and all, in the individual and the whole church: but this only in its own proper kind, that is to say, in the same doctrine, the same sense, and the same understanding.”

To evaluate whether there has been an impermissible deviation, we can look to three sources, two from John Paul II and the other from Leo XIV. John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint, cited Vatican II’s documents to describe a new orientation toward non-Catholic religions:

“In the present situation of the lack of unity among Christians and of the confident quest for full communion, the Catholic faithful are conscious of being deeply challenged by the Lord of the Church. The Second Vatican Council strengthened their commitment with a clear ecclesiological vision, open to all the ecclesial values present among other Christians. The Catholic faithful face the ecumenical question in a spirit of faith. The Council states that the Church of Christ ‘subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the Successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,’ and at the same time acknowledges that ‘many elements of sanctification and of truth can be found outside her visible structure. These elements, however, as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner dynamism towards Catholic unity.’ It follows that these separated Churches and Communities, though we believe that they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and value in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church.’ Speaking of the lack of unity among Christians, the Decree on Ecumenism does not ignore the fact that ‘people of both sides were to blame,’ and acknowledges that responsibility cannot be attributed only to the ‘other side.’ By God’s grace, however, neither what belongs to the structure of the Church of Christ nor that communion which still exists with the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities has been destroyed. Indeed, the elements of sanctification and truth present in the other Christian Communities, in a degree which varies from one to the other, constitute the objective basis of the communion, albeit imperfect, which exists between them and the Catholic Church. To the extent that these elements are found in other Christian communities, the one Church of Christ is effectively present in them.”

It is not difficult to discern that there are ideas in this passage that at least implicitly contradict the Catholic teaching that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. Even if one could find some theoretical way to avoid concluding that John Paul II’s statement explicitly contradicts Catholic doctrine, there is no legitimate argument that it retains the same sense and understanding of what the Church had always taught.

Decades earlier, with his 1979 encyclical from the beginning of his papacy, Redemptor Hominis, John Paul II himself had asserted that this ecumenical approach to non-Catholic religions was entirely new:

“What shall I say of all the initiatives that have sprung from the new ecumenical orientation? The unforgettable Pope John XXIII set out the problem of Christian unity with evangelical clarity as a simple consequence of the will of Jesus Christ himself, our Master, the will that Jesus stated on several occasions but to which he gave expression in a special way in his prayer in the Upper Room the night before he died: ‘I pray . . . Father . . . that they may all be one.’ The Second Vatican Council responded concisely to this requirement with its Decree on ecumenism. . . . There are people who, in the face of the difficulties or because they consider that the first ecumenical endeavours have brought negative results, would have liked to turn back. Some even express the opinion that these efforts are harmful to the cause of the Gospel, are leading to a further rupture in the Church, are causing confusion of ideas in questions of faith and morals, and are ending up with a specific indifferentism. It is perhaps a good thing that the spokesmen for these opinions should express their fears. However, in this respect also, correct limits must be maintained. It is obvious that this new stage in the Church’s life demands of us a faith that is particularly aware, profound, and responsible. True ecumenical activity means openness, drawing closer, availability for dialogue, and a shared investigation of the truth in the full evangelical and Christian sense; but in no way does it or can it mean giving up or in any way diminishing the treasures of divine truth that the Church has constantly confessed and taught. To all who, for whatever motive, would wish to dissuade the Church from seeking the universal unity of Christians, the question must once again be put: Have we the right not to do it?”

If the new ecumenical approach had simply been a matter of legitimately developing existing Catholic teaching, surely John Paul II would have been able to point to something other than Vatican II as the doctrinal source. However, for purposes of the new ecumenism, Vatican II was the true point of departure from what the Church had always taught.

The most recent example to consider comes from Leo XIV’s April 27, 2026 message to “Her Grace Sarah Mullally, Archbishop of Canterbury”:

“Your Grace, Peace be with all of you. In the joy of this Paschal season, as we continue to celebrate the resurrection of the Lord Jesus from the dead, I am pleased to welcome you and your Delegation to the Vatican. . . . Your Grace, in thanking you for your visit today, I pray that the same Holy Spirit will remain with you always, making you fruitful in the service to which you have been called.”

By praying that the Holy Spirit will make Mrs. Mullally fruitful in her service as the senior “bishop” of the Church of England, Leo XIV unmistakably asserted his approval of the Church of England and his belief that God positively wills that the Church of England continue leading souls to practice a heretical religion. This is merely the most recent indication that false ecumenism constitutes a completely impermissible evolution of Catholic doctrine. The SSPX Position on Ecumenism and the Immutability of Catholic Doctrine

In their January 6, 2004 letter to the world’s cardinals, the SSPX’s bishops and first assistant general, Fr. Franz Schmidberger, presented the SSPX position on the ecumenical movement:

“How can we avoid placing ecumenism among the principal causes of this tragic state of affairs — that ecumenism initiated by Vatican II and promoted by Pope John Paul II? With the declared aim of establishing a new unity and invoking a desire to ‘focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us,’ ecumenism would rectify or reinterpret or simply cast aside those elements of Catholicism that appear to be a cause of division. Thus disdaining the constant and unanimous teaching of Tradition which holds that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation, ecumenism has destroyed, as it were, the most beautiful treasures of the Church, for instead of accepting that Unity founded on the plentitude of truth, it would establish a new unity upon a truth that espouses error.” (SSPX, From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, p. 6)

In the view of the SSPX, “disdaining the constant and unanimous teaching of Tradition which holds that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation” does not constitute legitimate development of doctrine.

If, for the sake of avoiding censure from Rome, the SSPX were to give up its Providential role of defending the immutable Catholic Faith given to us by God, what would be the point of being Catholic at all? Tweet this quote

Since the time of Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical Humani Generis, God has not guided the occupants of the papacy to speak firmly against impermissible doctrinal evolution. It is as though, in His loving Providence, God deigned to allow Pius XII and his predecessors to provide all of the guidance necessary to protect us against the evils that have plundered the Church since the Council. As Fr. Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX Superior General, said in his April 19, 2026 interview, the SSPX’s role in God’s Providence appears to be to remain the witness to the immutability of Catholic doctrine, adhering to the holy wisdom of the pre-Vatican II popes against the impermissible aberrations promoted by Rome for so long:

“Now, the Tradition of the Church, which the Society of Saint Pius X strives to embody, itself represents a condemnation of these aberrations, unbearable to those who promote such tolerance. If one analyses the situation carefully, the sanctions, past or future, aimed at the Society of Saint Pius X, oppose not so much an act of disobedience but the fact that the Society constitutes a living condemnation with regard to the current ecclesiastical line. The role that Providence seems to reserve for the Society of Saint Pius X is the singular one of being a sign of contradiction: which means, concretely, a thorn in the side of the reformers. And the peculiarity of this thorn is that the more one seeks to remove it, the deeper it penetrates: it is not the thorn itself that determines this therapeutic effect, but the two thousand years of Tradition that it embodies and represents. The Society of Saint Pius X may be sanctioned, the Tridentine Mass forbidden . . . but these two thousand years can never be suppressed. This is the real reason why, despite past condemnations, the Society has never ceased to be a voice that challenges the Church; and this also explains why it is not so simple to be tolerant of it. A day will come when a pope decides to remove this thorn from his side: he will then be able to use it as a docile instrument to contribute—as is our deepest wish—to restoring all things in Our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Within the Catholic Church today, the SSPX is the only body of bishops, priests, and religious who are willing to witness to the immutability of Catholic teaching to the extent of choosing obedience to immutable Catholic teaching over obedience to the putative authorities who are distorting that immutable Catholic teaching. The sedevacantists are obviously not in the same position because they do not recognize the putative authorities of the Church; and other Traditional Catholics are not in the same position because they do not have bishops and, even if they did, they must choose obedience to Rome. Only the SSPX is willing to be the “therapeutic thorn,” the sign of contradiction that puts into practice the all-important counsel of St. Paul:

If the SSPX were to please the men in Rome (by ostensible obedience to wayward authority) rather than God (by fidelity to immutable Catholic truth), then who would remain to credibly insist that St. Paul was correct? Although the salvation of souls is surely the most important basis for asserting the necessity of the SSPX consecrating bishops to continue its Providential role, this witness to the immutability of the Catholic doctrine is itself a sufficient basis for asserting that necessity. If, for the sake of avoiding censure from Rome, the SSPX were to give up its Providential role of defending the immutable Catholic Faith given to us by God, what would be the point of being Catholic at all? Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Is the Pope meeting her as a valid fellow bishop, or simply as a foreign dignitary?

He's meeting her as a fellow "bishop", which is an act of apostasy:

MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV ON THE OCCASION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

To The Most Reverend and Right Honourable
Dame Sarah Mullally
Archbishop of Canterbury

“Grace, mercy, and peace will be with us, from God the Father and from
Jesus Christ, the Father’s Son, in truth and love.” (2 Jn 1:3)

With this assurance of God’s abiding presence, I send prayerful greetings to Your Grace on the occasion of your Installation as Archbishop of Canterbury.

I know that the office for which you have been chosen is a weighty one, with responsibilities not only in the Diocese of Canterbury, but throughout the Church of England as well as the Anglican Communion as a whole. Moreover, you are commencing these duties at a challenging moment in the history of the Anglican family. In asking the Lord to strengthen you with the gift of wisdom, I pray that you may be guided by the Holy Spirit in serving your communities, and draw inspiration from the example of Mary, the Mother of God.

...

From the Vatican, 20 March 2026
Memorial of Saint Cuthbert, Bishop

LEO PP. XIV

He's meeting her as a fellow "bishop", which is an act of apostasy

Thank you. A good clarification.

Before this, back when they were all men, were Anglican bishops considered valid bishops by the Roman Catholic Church?

I have the impression they were not. Is that correct?

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.

Immutability vs. Ecumenism: Pope meets Anglican bishop… at what cost?

MESSAGE OF POPE LEO XIV ON THE OCCASION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

It Looks Ridiculous: Popes Have to Stop Receiving Protestant “Bishops” and “Bishopesses” as Equals