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.
Posted on 07/31/2026 8:37:10 AM PDT by ebb tide
As Leo XIV stated prior to the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) proceeding with the episcopal consecrations without his approval, he believes that the real problem with the SSPX is that it does not accept certain teachings of Vatican II:
“Certainly, division among Christians is always a painful matter. But they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, beginning with various points of the Second Vatican Council. And if they make those choices, I am sorry. But we must move forward.”
The analysis that follows evaluates three authoritative statements from Benedict XVI about Vatican II to demonstrate that his opposition to those promoting the “hermeneutic of rupture” applies directly to Leo XIV and today’s Vatican. Taking these three statements sequentially, we can also discern that the SSPX’s position is far more consistent with Benedict’s approach than that of the SSPX’s opponents.
“The Second Vatican Council has been treated as a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest.” — Cardinal Ratzinger (1988)Tweet this quote
As discussed in a previous article, Cardinal Ratzinger’s conference to the bishops of Chile after the SSPX’s 1988 episcopal consecrations was far more sympathetic to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre than to the progressives who vehemently opposed the SSPX. This conference featured Cardinal Ratzinger’s well-known rebuke of those who place too much importance on Vatican II:
“The Second Vatican Council has not been treated as a part of the entire living Tradition of the Church, but as an end of Tradition, a new start from zero. The truth is that this particular council defined no dogma at all, and deliberately chose to remain on a modest level, as a merely pastoral council; and yet many treat it as though it had made itself into a sort of superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest. This idea is made stronger by things that are now happening. That which previously was considered most holy — the form in which the liturgy was handed down — suddenly appears as the most forbidden of all things, the one thing that can safely be prohibited.”
These words are not complicated, but it is easy to miss their full meaning. When Cardinal Ratzinger said that some treat the Council as though it was a “superdogma which takes away the importance of all the rest,” he was clearly telling us that the progressives take certain things from the Council that are not well-represented (if at all) in what the Church had previously taught. We know this is his meaning because there would be no conflict at all if the progressives were stressing portions of Vatican II that were already a part of what Ratzinger described as “all the rest.”
Moreover, it is important to recall that these words were in the context of him explaining that many of Archbishop Lefebvre’s concerns were valid. He saw a real tension between what the Church had always taught (as defended by Archbishop Lefebvre) and the liberal interpretations of Vatican II. In this regard he certainly appeared to side with Archbishop Lefebvre’s approach of insisting that we cannot discard what the Church had always taught. As we know, these words from Cardinal Ratzinger fell on deaf ears, and the SSPX is still condemned today — including by Leo XIV’s words above — for its failure to accept the “new teachings” of Vatican II.
Benedict XVI’s criticism of the “hermeneutic of rupture” was directed at progressives… not, as Catholics have been conditioned to believe, at Traditionalists.Tweet this quote
In his December 22, 2005 Christmas greetings to the Roman Curia, Benedict XVI offered his famous distinction between the hermeneutic of rupture and the hermeneutic of continuity:
“The question arises: Why has the implementation of the Council, in large parts of the Church, thus far been so difficult? Well, it all depends on the correct interpretation of the Council or — as we would say today — on its proper hermeneutics, the correct key to its interpretation and application. The problems in its implementation arose from the fact that two contrary hermeneutics came face to face and quarrelled with each other. One caused confusion, the other, silently but more and more visibly, bore and is bearing fruit. On the one hand, there is an interpretation that I would call ‘a hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture’; it has frequently availed itself of the sympathies of the mass media, and also one trend of modern theology. On the other, there is the ‘hermeneutic of reform,’ of renewal in the continuity of the one subject-Church which the Lord has given to us. She is a subject which increases in time and develops, yet always remaining the same, the one subject of the journeying People of God.”
Catholics have been conditioned to oppose the SSPX in part because they have been told that the SSPX illegitimately promotes the hermeneutic of rupture rather than the hermeneutic of continuity. If we read further, though, we can see that Benedict XVI’s criticism of the hermeneutic of rupture was specifically directed at progressives who focus only on the “impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts”:
“The hermeneutic of discontinuity risks ending in a split between the pre-conciliar Church and the post-conciliar Church. It asserts that the texts of the Council as such do not yet express the true spirit of the Council. It claims that they are the result of compromises in which, to reach unanimity, it was found necessary to keep and reconfirm many old things that are now pointless. However, the true spirit of the Council is not to be found in these compromises but instead in the impulses toward the new that are contained in the texts. These innovations alone were supposed to represent the true spirit of the Council, and starting from and in conformity with them, it would be possible to move ahead. Precisely because the texts would only imperfectly reflect the true spirit of the Council and its newness, it would be necessary to go courageously beyond the texts and make room for the newness in which the Council’s deepest intention would be expressed, even if it were still vague. In a word: it would be necessary not to follow the texts of the Council but its spirit. In this way, obviously, a vast margin was left open for the question on how this spirit should subsequently be defined and room was consequently made for every whim.”
Who was it that sought to promote the “impulses toward the new” from the Vatican II documents: the SSPX or the progressives? Obviously that would be the progressives who rejected the “old things” that Archbishop Lefebvre and the other conservative Council Fathers had managed to have included in the Council documents. Thus, Benedict XVI was actually validating the most important portion of Archbishop Lefebvre’s concerns about the Council’s texts.
“There was the Council of the Fathers… but there was also the Council of the media.” — Benedict XVI (2013)Tweet this quote
Benedict XVI went on to describe what he viewed as the proper means of interpretation, which is known as the hermeneutic of continuity. Although the SSPX rejects the notion that we can simply accept all of the Vatican II texts on the basis of this hermeneutic of continuity — because the ambiguities and errors in the documents are problematic no matter how we interpret them — Benedict’s approach certainly aligns more with that of the SSPX than its opponents:
“Here I shall cite only John XXIII’s well-known words, which unequivocally express this hermeneutic when he says that the Council wishes ‘to transmit the doctrine, pure and integral, without any attenuation or distortion.’ And he continues: ‘Our duty is not only to guard this precious treasure, as if we were concerned only with antiquity, but to dedicate ourselves with an earnest will and without fear to that work which our era demands of us . . . .’ It is necessary that ‘adherence to all the teaching of the Church in its entirety and preciseness . . .’ be presented in ‘faithful and perfect conformity to the authentic doctrine, which, however, should be studied and expounded through the methods of research and through the literary forms of modern thought. The substance of the ancient doctrine of the deposit of faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another . . . ,’ retaining the same meaning and message.”
These words stand in stark contrast with what we heard from Francis and have heard from Leo and today’s Vatican. However, they align closely with the following statement:
“83. I therefore reject every evolutionist conception of dogma, according to which revealed truths would change their meaning over the course of history. There can be within the Church a homogeneous progress in understanding, which perceives better, in a more distinct and explicit manner, the meaning of revealed truth, but never a mutation in the meaning of that truth. What has already been taught by the living Magisterium of the Teaching Church, and believed in the profession of Faith of the Church Taught, cannot become false; what has been condemned as contrary to the Faith cannot become legitimate; what belongs to the divine constitution of the Church cannot be remodelled according to the categories of the modern world or the historico-cultural context.”
This is from the SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith (June 24, 2026), and it is most certainly a better representation of what Benedict XVI advocated than what Leo XIV demands today.
To put this in a practical context for the sake of illustrating the implications for today’s conflict, we can imagine how these concepts would play out in an analogous progression in which the subject matter was “wall colors” rather than doctrine (such as “no salvation outside the Church”):
This simple illustration helps us see that Benedict XVI’s criticism of the SSPX was mainly that it notices and objects to the problems with the Vatican II texts. Benedict XVI saw the problems as well but could not directly condemn them.
Years before Francis ever announced the Synod on Synodality, Benedict XVI rebuked the foundational concepts of the Synodal Church.Tweet this quote
As has been frequently discussed by Traditional Catholics, Benedict XVI’s farewell address to the clergy of Rome included a stunning passage stating that the “Council of the media” had caused so many problems:
“I would now like to add yet a third point: there was the Council of the Fathers – the real Council – but there was also the Council of the media. It was almost a Council apart, and the world perceived the Council through the latter, through the media. Thus, the Council that reached the people with immediate effect was that of the media, not that of the Fathers. . . . It was obvious that the media would take the side of those who seemed to them more closely allied with their world. There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops, and then, through the expression ‘People of God,’ power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops and the power of all – popular sovereignty. Naturally, for them, this was the part to be approved, to be promulgated, to be favoured. So too with the liturgy: there was no interest in liturgy as an act of faith, but as something where comprehensible things are done, a matter of community activity, something profane. And we know that there was a tendency, not without a certain historical basis, to say: sacrality is a pagan thing, perhaps also a thing of the Old Testament. . . . We know that this Council of the media was accessible to everyone. Therefore, this was the dominant one, the more effective one, and it created so many disasters, so many problems, so much suffering: seminaries closed, convents closed, banal liturgy . . . and the real Council had difficulty establishing itself and taking shape; the virtual Council was stronger than the real Council. But the real force of the Council was present and, slowly but surely, established itself more and more and became the true force which is also the true reform, the true renewal of the Church. It seems to me that, 50 years after the Council, we see that this virtual Council is broken, is lost, and there now appears the true Council with all its spiritual force.”
A few ideas from this passage are worth highlighting. First, the concept of the “Council of the media” cannot refer solely to how media reported Council events. After all, Benedict XVI also spoke of the way in which the Council of the media caused problems with the liturgy, but this would have been impossible if the Council of the media simply meant how journalists have reported on the Council. The most logical meaning is that the “Council of the media” corresponded to the media’s emphasis on those actual portions of the Council documents and proceedings that it favored. This interpretation aligns with the 1988 and 2005 statements from Ratzinger/Benedict above.
The SSPX condemns what Benedict XVI condemned, while Francis and Leo XIV advance the Council of the media.Tweet this quote
There are also ideas in the middle of this passage that will sound familiar to those who have studied the Synod on Synodality:
“There were those who sought the decentralization of the Church, power for the bishops, and then, through the expression ‘People of God,’ power for the people, the laity. There was this threefold question: the power of the Pope, which was then transferred to the power of the bishops, and the power of all – popular sovereignty.”
It was still several years before Francis announced the Synod on Synodality, but Benedict XVI already rebuked the foundational concepts of the Synodal Church with this passage. Eleven years later, the Final Document of the 2024 Synodal Session revealed these concepts as a key way in which the Synodal Church operates:
“127. In Ecclesial assemblies (regional, national, continental) members who express and represent the diversity of the People of God (including bishops) take part in the discernment that will enable bishops, collegially, to reach decisions which it is proper for them to make by reason of their ministry. This experience demonstrates how synodality enables concretely the involvement of all (the holy People of God) and the ministry of some (the College of Bishops) in the decision-making process concerning the mission of the Church. . . . 129. To realise a ‘sound decentralisation’ (EG 16) and an effective inculturation of faith, it is necessary not only to recognise the role of Episcopal Conferences, but also to reevaluate the institution of particular councils, both provincial and plenary. . . . 134. A synodal reflection on the exercise of the Petrine ministry must be undertaken from the perspective of the ‘sound decentralisation’ (EG 16) wanted by Pope Francis and many Episcopal Conferences. According to the Apostolic Constitution Praedicate Evangelium, this decentralisation means “to leave to the competence of Bishops the authority to resolve, in the exercise of ‘their proper task as teachers’ and pastors, those issues with which they are familiar and that do not affect the Church’s unity of doctrine, discipline and communion, always acting with that spirit of co-responsibility which is the fruit and expression of the specific mysterium communionis that is the Church (PE II, 2).”
This appears to be precisely what Benedict XVI had rebuked as the designs of the “Council of the media.” This work of Francis is today continued by Leo XIV, and it constitutes the most egregious example of the “hermeneutic of rupture.”
Does the SSPX support the Vatican in its Synodal hermeneutic of rupture? No, here is how the SSPX Profession of Catholic Faith addresses this Synodal decentralization:
“79. I likewise reject the synodalist conceptions which tend to transform the hierarchical Church into a consultative, parliamentary, or democratic structure, subject to the fluctuating opinions of the Christian people or to the pressures of the world. The collective conscience of the faithful, pastoral surveys, cultural sensibilities, and the expectations of the world are not sources of Revelation. The legitimate hearing of souls can never become a continual adaptation of the life of the Church, her doctrine, and her divine constitution to the spirit of the world, under pretext of interpreting the ‘sensus fidei’ of the people of God.”
So, as above, the SSPX condemns what Benedict XVI condemned, while the ideas championed by Francis and Leo XIV advance the hermeneutic of rupture and the Council of the media.
Therefore, if we want to view matters rationally, it should be obvious that Benedict XVI and his “real Council” condemn Leo XIV’s Synodal hermeneutic of rupture, not the SSPX. As such, those who fixate on anti-SSPX polemics that no longer apply to the reality in Rome may think they are aligned with Benedict XVI on this matter, but they are in fact aligned with those who sought to destroy him. For those who are willing to radically change their faith with every whim from Rome, this may not matter. But for those who love God and His Church, it seems that it is no longer legitimate to pretend that faithfulness consists in blind obedience to today’s Vatican. 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
“Synodality” is a typical marxist, post-modern word.
Its therefore a political term, which lacks a firm definition, and effectively means whatever the powers-that-be want it to mean
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.