Posted on 07/30/2026 2:49:57 PM PDT by ebb tide
When Leo XIV condemned the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) for refusing “to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council,” most Catholics might have inferred that the pope considered complete acceptance of the teachings of Vatican II to be an essential requirement of the Faith. As such, it could come as a surprise to many Catholics to learn that Leo XIV and his Vatican actually reject certain key portions of Vatican II that the SSPX accepts. The analysis that follows looks at two of the most important concepts in the Church today — doctrinal development and ecumenism — to demonstrate that Vatican II condemns Leo’s Vatican, not the SSPX.
Perhaps the clearest way to see the Vatican’s position on doctrinal development is to look at John Paul II’s Ecclesia Dei, regarding the 1988 excommunications of the SSPX. John Paul II cited Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, to highlight the “schismatic” roots of Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre’s decision to consecrate bishops without papal approval:
The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, ‘comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth.’
This is a relatively standard explanation of “living tradition.” Later in Ecclesia Dei, the pope encouraged theologians to engage in studies to reveal how Vatican II’s new doctrines comport with Tradition:
Moreover, I should like to remind theologians and other experts in the ecclesiastical sciences that they should feel themselves called upon to answer in the present circumstances. Indeed, the extent and depth of the teaching of the Second Vatican Council call for a renewed commitment to deeper study in order to reveal clearly the Council’s continuity with Tradition, especially in points of doctrine which, perhaps because they are new, have not yet been well understood by some sections of the Church.
READ: Comparing the SSPX, FSSP, sedevacantists, and other traditional movements
One would have thought that this intellectual exercise would have been completed during the Council, prior to promulgating the new teachings. In any case, the most telling aspect of this condemnation of Archbishop Lefebvre’s incomplete notion of Tradition was the omission of the paragraph from Dei Verbum immediately preceding the one cited:
And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3). Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes. (Dei Verbum, 8)
The reason that Archbishop Lefebvre resisted the novelties of false ecumenism, for example, was because he adhered to this section of Vatican II that places definite limits on living tradition. If the Vatican had also adhered to it, it would not have thought it possible to radically alter the Church’s teaching on “no salvation outside the Church.”
Dei Verbum also required the teaching office of the Church to scrupulously guard the Faith:
Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers, so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed. (Dei Verbum, 10)
This is entirely opposed to the ongoing Synod on Synodality in which the teaching office of the Church has been replaced, at least in part, by a synodal structure in which truths are discerned through a process of listening to the People of God to find a consensus about matters of faith and morals.
Even beyond ecumenism and the Synod on Synodality, we can see the Vatican’s stance on doctrinal evolution in various matters, including the following:
If the Leo XIV and the Vatican followed Dei Verbum’s requirement of holding fast to Tradition, they would have to reject all of these unholy innovations. The only way that can proceed, then, is by rejecting this all-important guardrail of Vatican II.
Most Catholics with some familiarity with Vatican II may believe that it unambiguously supports the false ecumenism that we see today. However, a few key passages actually align with the SSPX resistance to false ecumenism. For example, Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, teaches that the Catholic Church is “ the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation”:
This Sacred Council wishes to turn its attention firstly to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself upon Sacred Scripture and Tradition, it teaches that the Church, now sojourning on earth as an exile, is necessary for salvation. Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation. In explicit terms He Himself affirmed the necessity of faith and baptism and thereby affirmed also the necessity of the Church, for through baptism as through a door men enter the Church. Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved. (Lumen Gentium, 14)
This repudiates the Vatican’s constant overtures to non-Catholics that assure them that their religions are also means of salvation, such that they have no need to convert to Catholicism. Non-Catholics may, of course, dispute this teaching from Lumen Gentium, but it is not the Vatican’s role to do so.
READ: There can be no union between the SSPX and the Synodal Church
The Council’s Decree on Missionary Activity of the Church, Ad Gentes, further emphasizes that the possibility of God saving those who are invincibly ignorant in no way detracts from the necessity of trying to bring souls to the Catholic Church.
This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, ‘who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all’ (1 Tim. 2:45), ‘neither is there salvation in any other’ (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church’s preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself ‘by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it.’ Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity. (Ad Gentes, 7)
This is completely foreign to what we have seen from the Vatican, especially since Francis’s tenure. Far from attempting to lead souls to the “unique way of salvation,” today’s Vatican perpetually signals to the world that there is no need to be Catholic.
These matters of doctrinal evolution and false ecumenism are not minor. If doctrine can evolve in a way that violates the requirements of Dei Verbum, then the Faith of tomorrow may contradict what it is today. This upends the entire religion.
False ecumenism attacks the Faith in a different way. The ecumenists have retained the notion that the Church is necessary for salvation but have emptied it of all real significance. Yes, the Church is “necessary”; but false ecumenism tells us this really just means that non-Catholic religions gain their salvific value from the Church, so you can be saved through those non-Catholic religions. No amount of sophistry can hide the fact that countless souls have taken this seriously and concluded that they no longer needed to be Catholic; countless others have understandably decided that there was no reason to convert to Catholicism.
So if we look at the greatest problems in the Church today, they relate directly to Rome’s refusal to follow the explicit teachings of Vatican II. As such, Leo XIV’s condemnation of the SSPX seems to run afoul of Our Lord’s teaching about beams and motes (Matthew 7:3-5). May God grant him the grace to accept these key portions of Vatican II, and then perhaps he would realize why the SSPX adheres to Tradition rather than chasing unholy novelties. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
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. |
Ping
It seems to me that Vatican II was a move away from doctrinal Catholicism, although I don’t know the reason for that other than its adherents were either hostile against traditional Catholicism or they were naive and ignorant.
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.