I have often voiced my gratitude for the grace of being a student in Rome during the four sessions of the Second Vatican Council. One of the most unforgettable moments occurred barely six weeks after the Council’s opening. On November 20, 1962, the preparatory schema, “De fontibus revelationis,” was found wanting and rejected by over sixty percent of the Council fathers. And, though the Council’s procedures stipulated that a two-thirds vote was necessary to reject a draft, Pope John XXIII intervened and remanded the documents to be re-worked by a newly constituted committee. That day, as has often been remarked, the bishops assumed direction of the Council–cum Petro et sub Petro.
It also marked the beginning of the process that led to the promulgation, three years later, of what I have called “the first among equals” of the Council’s four constitutions. Without in any way minimizing the significance of the Constitutions on the Liturgy, the Church, and the Church in the Modern World, I have insisted, in season and out of season, on the primary importance of the “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation:” Dei Verbum.
In an essay on the Council, I offered my justification for this assertion:
For if God does not truly reveal himself, there is no foundation for the Church. It becomes only a human association and organization. And if God has not given himself definitively in Christ, there is no basis for liturgy. It becomes a merely human gathering, bereft of transcendent reference.1
In his speech at the conclusion of the Extraordinary Consistory of Cardinals in early January, in what might be taken as the true beginning of his own pontificate, Pope Leo declared:
We can never emphasize enough the importance of continuing the journey that began with the Council. I encourage you to do so. I have chosen this theme, as you know – the documents and experience of the Council – for the public audiences this year. And this journey is a process of life, of conversion, of renewal of the entire Church.”
Thus, in the first public audience of the New Year on January 7th, Pope Leo announced his intention to begin a cycle of catecheses on the Council and a “rereading of its documents.” And he offered a brief synopsis of the Council’s achievement.
Vatican Council II rediscovered the face of God as the Father who, in Christ, calls us to be his children; it looked at the Church in the light of Christ, light of nations, as a mystery of communion and sacrament of unity between God and his people.
Hence, it comes as no surprise that, in the ensuing weeks, the first conciliar document the Pope has chosen to explore is Dei Verbum, not the first promulgated chronologically (which of course was the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium), but first in the sense of foundational.
Leo lays bare the heart of its teaching on divine revelation when he states:
The fulfilment of this revelation takes place in a historical and personal encounter in which God himself gives himself to us, making himself present, and we discover that we are known in our deepest truth. It is what happens in Jesus Christ. [Dei Verbum] states that ‘the deepest truth about God and the salvation of man shines out for our sake in Christ, who is both the mediator and the fullness of all revelation’. (DV, 2).
This Christocentric persuasion permeates each of Vatican II’s constitutions as it does Pope Leo’s magisterium. He begins his catechesis on Vatican II with Dei Verbum because it proclaims the Christological confession that is the Church’s life and very condition for being.
For this reason, Leo also has special regard for Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium—one of the two themes reflected upon in the Extraordinary Consistory. He does not dwell on Francis’s speculations about polyhedrons or his musings concerning time being greater than space. Rather, he underscores the joy of the Gospel, which is Jesus himself. He resonates with the forthrightly evangelical Francis who declares that “the primary reason for evangelizing is the love of Jesus which we have received” and with Francis’s persuasion that such love impels “the need to speak of the beloved, to point him out, to make him known” (EG, 264).
It is no surprise then that, in the audience of February 4th, Leo quotes Evangelii Gaudium approvingly:
Whenever we make the effort to return to the source and to recover the original freshness of the Gospel, new avenues arise, new paths of creativity open up, with different forms of expression, more eloquent signs and words with new meaning for today’s world. (EG, 11)
The dialectic here is that of the Council’s ressourcement and aggiornamento: return to the source in order to proclaim afresh. But this dynamic movement is governed throughout by Dei Verbum’s radical Christo-logic. For the “original freshness of the Gospel” is Jesus Christ himself, whose Light the Church reflects (as the moon reflects the light of the sun) and in whose light it discerns the “signs of the times.” I contend that Leo is recovering the evangelical heart of Evangelii Gaudium without being burdened by its obiter dicta.
A brief but salient example of Pope Leo’s commitment to Dei Verbum’s Christocentric vision and Evangelii Gaudium’s missionary commitment can be found in his Mission Sunday Message issued January 25th. It bears the title: “One in Christ, United in Mission.” Echoing both Benedict XVI and Francis, Leo writes: “being ‘one in Christ’ calls us to keep our gaze fixed on the Lord, so that he may truly be at the center of our lives and communities, the center of every word, action and interpersonal relationship, leading us to say with amazement: ‘It is no longer I who live, but it is Christ who lives in me’” (Gal 2:20).
Only then can the Church, can we, truly be missionary disciples who, as Pope Leo urges, “make Christ’s love visible and invite everyone to encounter him.” To realize this blessed imperative, he offers Francis of Assisi as a model and bids us “find inspiration in his desire to live in the love of the Lord and to transmit it to those both near and far, because, as he said, ‘his love Who has loved us much is much to be loved’.”
Pope Leo’s seamless appeal to both Dei Verbum and Evangelii Gaudium appears, then, as a fecund series of variations upon the one theme: Jesus Christ, “the same yesterday, today, and forever” (Heb 13:8). This surely comes as no surprise, since he had already inscribed this Christic cantus firmus in his episcopal motto: In Illo Uno Unum. In the one Christ we are one.
That Pope Leo has chosen Bishop Erik Varden to preach the Lenten retreat to the Curia is surely recognition that the same Christic cantus firmus undergirds Varden’s own splendid spiritual compositions.
Endnotes:
1 Robert P. Imbelli, “Remembering and Misremembering Vatican II,” in Christ Brings All Newness: Essays, Reviews, and Reflections, edited with an Introduction by Richard G. Smith (Word on Fire Academic: 2023), 3.
If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!
Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.
All’s well that sounds well. Marriage is an indissoluble union. Dei Verbum Evangelii Gaudium. Fr Imbelli perceives a loving union, Christocentric, joyful. With the aside obiter dicta.
That time is greater than space means what is revealed in a given space becomes modified in time. Imbelli’s take on Leo XIV is well spoken and positive. Although, can we realistically assume the general audience will accept a modified bride?
Not sure of your message, Fr. Morello. Fr. Imbelli writes: ” He [Leo] does not dwell on Francis’s speculations [!] about polyhedrons or his musings [!] concerning time being greater than space.” Faint praise, indeed…
Doesn’t this mean that Evangelii Gaudium is cleaned up and realigned with the clarity of Dei Verbum, such that Francis’s exploitable “principle” that “time is greater than space,” and such that that “polyhedral” ambiguity (poly-synodality) within the Church, both, are excised? These tumors are surgically removed rather than simply muted for the time being. The silence speaks volumes. Yes?
Not necessarily since mere silence would not be excision and in the run of the usual it is taken for consent.
How does EG “clean up”? Those “4 principles” are pinnacle Modernism -the modernists’ modernist as it were.
Fr. Morello’s insight would apply on all 4 not just the first one; where also then silence becomes one of the actuators in each. Very ….. dark.
VATICAN II did not “begin a journey” or offer tabula rasa, it answers for graces already at work in the Church that had been welling up from Trent and VATICAN I. This way of looking into the history of it is woefully neglected, not even bodies like ITC pick up on the ever widening gap. And in many places among separated “sides” not neglected but actively and forcefully rejected. What Pope Leo is projecting is something else not getting to it.
You then can’t “quote” EG to authenticate or make up for the difference in what is needed, so to uphold the difference as the Council’s meaning.
The article says, “This Christocentric persuasion permeates each of Vatican II’s constitutions as it does Pope Leo’s magisterium.” It presents this as if it were a new stance or an improvement over past Church practices. My issue is that this perspective has been present since the time of Peter and the other twelve apostles. Am I overlooking something, or is my understanding of Church history off?
Howdy Michael. I’m no theologian – and there are others that hang around these chats that may be able to offer a better answer; but I’ve been trying to spend more time understanding the context of Vatican II over the past few years. Here’s my understanding – and I’ll humbly let someone else run the football if they have a better play.
Absolutely the Church has been Christocentric by definition since its inception. I don’t think the author means to say that the doctrine on Christ changed at Vatican II (broadly speaking: there were some reversals, some clarifications, and some developments of doctrine); but Guarino argues that one of the biggest changes was that teaching of the Council shifted in tone from the several previous Ecumenical Councils – employing the language of analogy and accompaniment in lieu of dialectic. That is to say, simply, the emphasis of the Vatican II documents is more concerned with revealing to the reader how man and the Church interact with God and inviting him into relationship with Him, rather than declaring what is heresy. In that sense, the goal seems to be attempting to bring Christ to “modern man.”
This is probably way overly simplistic – there has been gallons of ink spent on this topic by folks who are much more well-read and studied than me; but hopefully it provides a peak into the nuance of what I think Fr. Imbelli is getting at in noting the Christocentric persuasion. Thomas Guarino wrote a really great book “The Disputed Teachings of Vatican II” that’s worth a read if this topic interests you.
Thank you for your comment, James. I recognize that being a convert brings a vast number of different theological areas that demonstrate that I don’t know that I don’t know. I often assume that things are flying above my head when I observe other Catholics reacting in ways that I don’t understand. It is not that I am “unread”, but that so much of Catholic culture is foreign to me. Vatican II, for me, is a source of confusion. Thanks again.
The Christian journey did not begin with Vat. II. That is the lie that has been promulgated as if the Church was dead before then. Why is it that after Vat. II what was supposed to be “a new springtime for the Church” has actually become a new winter for the Church. The false ecumenism that followed Vat. II where she has bend so far over to non-Catholics and the secular world that her true identity as Jesus founded her on Peter has become blurred causing so many to abandon her. Please stop spraying perfule on what smells rotten.
“The Original Sin in the theory of polyhedra goes back to Euclid, and through Kepler, Poinsot, Cauchy and many others … at each stage … the writers failed to define what are the polyhedra.”
Branko Grünbaum
“…new avenues arise, new paths of creativity open up, with different forms of expression, more eloquent signs and words with new meaning for today’s world.”
That sounds so wonderful!
I can’t help but think of Coca-Cola selling its different formulas, and going back to the original.
I do share Fr. Morello’s and your concerns, but am more confident that we are seeing a course change. Yes, the proof will be in the pudding as Pope Leo’s catechesis on the Council Documents comes forward in this new year. I simply propose that in this case, and in Vaticanese, silence is a burial without creating false martyrs.
For the record, yours truly has for several years spotlighted the problem of the four ambiguous “principles” superimposed (in italics!) as a modifying context atop the Gospel message otherwise presented in Evangelii Gaudium. from one of many earlier posts:
The “Joy of Life” (2014) sounds very much in lock-step with the possible moral gradualism embedded within “The Joy of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium, EG, 2013). Italicized and exploitable, from within EG:
FIRST, when is “realities are more important than ideas,” risking/enabling concrete NOMINALISM?
SECOND, when is “time is greater than space,” risking/enabling amnesiac HISTORICISM?
THIRD, when is “unity prevails over conflict,” risking/enabling harmonizing/word-game CLERICALISM?
FOURTH, when is “the whole is greater than the part,” risking/enabling plebiscite GLOBALISM?
Response to Elias Galy, above.
Thank you Mr. Beaulieu, I read this post both as response to mine and as standing on its own.
For my first comment I had your earlier critiques of EG in mind, I hadn’t forgotten them since they are so incisive and memorable. Instrumental in drawing this writer along with the uptake at CWR. My ending sentence/final paragraph, “You then can’t ….. ” is in the sense of the third person “One then can’t ….. “.
My theme/thrust is as to graces already long at work in the Church and as to how they are either left behind or the works due from them are “misshapen” or mistaken or oddly memorialized. Could be it will get me into trouble, the ground always shifts nowadays. Or as I pictured it to CWR another way once earlier, upright reptilians in the background changing things around unseen. There are influential figures that intend to make sure that synodalism has no reversal or setback, that it “moves ahead as it must”, that where “appropriate” it will “embrace the traditional and the doctrinal” accordingly and that it will bind the bishops.
Where does one begin, now, about those graces and works. This is very difficult on its own and moreso for me with few resources and many restrictions among which my spiritual un-rich-ness and mind you absolutely no authoritative standing.
I might start here. Ordinarily -which I think is the rooted-immoveable sense to the Council, ordinary- each bishop is supposed to conduct his own dioceses according to the Church canon and the work of God. NOT CHANGED BY THE COUNCIL. But synodalism is antithetical to that, like high-flying acrobatics where the Ringmaster has removed the safety net and the powder and squeezed the action super-tightly much higher up there right under the Big Top.
While Redemption is open to all is the true message it also does not need to be reincarnated in a Church (via) “synod” (now to be known as synodality) for it be faithful or to have efficacy or “more efficacy”.
Thank you kindly. While I prefer the term “termites,” your “reptilian” has much to offer. And, reminds me of Napoleon who of some bishops once famously opined: “I am a monarch of God’s creation, and you reptiles [!] of the earth dare not oppose me. I render an account of my government to none save God and Jesus Christ.”
That said, and in partial response to the ten propositions in one of your links below (5:40 a.m.), here are my noises from the back bleachers:
Might Pope Leo have learned some stuff since his comments in May 2025? Might it mean something that he is developing a year-long catechesis on the Documents of Vatican II, rather than on the final report of the substitute Synod on Synodality? (Benedict routinely distinguished between the “real Council of the Documents” vs the “virtual Council of the media” (and mutation into hybrid “synods”). As a “style,” synodality might be deflated from a hot-air balloon to simply better interpersonal conversations across intact borders, consistent with the “hierarchical communion” of the Church (Lumen Gentium, Ch. 3).
This catechesis on Vatican II, rather than on the final reports of the dozen post-synodal “expert Study Groups on ‘hot-button issues’”? Noting that two key Groups have totally removed deaconesses from the table, and have demoted the homosexual agenda from the stature of “controversial” to a lower swamp as only an “emerging concern”?
Noting, too, that the once-proposed recycling of the synodal town hall meetings (diocesan, regional, continental) with a big party in Rome in 2028 so far has gone silent. Instead, to be replaced (?) by the recent consistory of cardinals, with another consistory in six months, and others annually thereafter (as in 2028)
Noting that the Roman Rota has been instructed to defend the nature and permanence of real marriage (with photo-op Jimmy Martin out of the picture?). And noting that the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith has been instructed to provide moral clarity (rather than termite/reptilian ambiguity as in Fiducia Supplicans) on so many moral issues now in play?
Yes, the above quote from Napoleon is likely not directly relevant to all of the above. Nor is his other quote to his weathervane Minister of Foreign Affairs, Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand, whom he once famously identified as neither a termite nor a reptile, but as “a silk stocking full of sh**.” (Appointed Bishop of Autun in 1788 by King Louis XVI, and excommunicated by the Church in 1791).
SUMMARY: Plausible grounds, the above, for discerning a healing and skillful turning point under Pope Leo XIV.
Going off-script a bit but still on point, my pictured bipedal reptilians were first met when I saw the film Zathura, A Space Adventure, in the years shortly after its release. They are called Zorgons. Interestingly this fiction story provides many curious parallels with synodalism, which are nicely summarized in the WIKIPEDIA account of it. The main line is about the two young sibling brothers “learning to get along” with other issues connected; but an alternative account for “the moral of the story” could easily be, “Do not play bad board games and word games producing heat and darkness.”
Kirsten Stewart stars in this film as the teenaged elder sister of the two brothers. This young lady is an enigma to herself in real life and in acting and I feel that as of today she needs to turn to Christ and abandon her forays into evil drama and overturn that area of her life. But in this film she is at her heroic and charming best and it is as if the part she got given here as actress is calling her to her true self out of a very bad circle.
‘ Lisa awakens from her stasis and turns up the heat, still unaware of the situation. The Zorgons return and dock their ships at the house. Lisa finally realizes the predicament, and the foursome hides, only to discover they have left the game behind. Danny finds the game aboard one of the Zorgon ships, but is spotted by the Zorgons. When the robot begins to attack the brothers, Walter uses a “reprogram” card he had drawn earlier to fix it. ‘
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zathura:_A_Space_Adventure
I trust Fr. Imbelli, who I believe is a faithful priest, faithfully to Christ, and faithful to His Church, who in full faithfulness has written candidly about the the widespread and deliberate apostasy in the Church establishment, most notably in his essay “No Decapitated Body,” published in the journal Nova et Vetera, a few years ago.
I appreciate the concerns raised by Fr. Morello et al, and acknowledged by Peter B in reply.
I withhold judgment, for now, on the Pontiff Leo, until such time as I see affirmative acts of governance that restore some semblance of justice, after the 12 year carnival of contempt by the ringmaster and now deceased Pontiff Francis. Among the things that would indicate a commitment to “Christ The Judge” would be the restoration of the good name and reputation of the Vatican financial auditor Libero Milone; the trial and conviction and punishment of the Pontiff Francis’ pet-artist-in-residence, the sex abuser the “Rev.” Marco Rupnik, SJ,; the replacement and retiring of the Pontiff Francis’ hand-picked “chief-of-revised-morality,” the psycho-sexually-obsessed Eminence Tucho Fernandez, the full restoration of the rights of the faithful who live the TLM, as given in full by Pope Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum, and the removal and retirement of Eminence Roche, and governmental discipline of apostate Bishops, beginning with those in Germany, and the requested resignations of Cardinals McElroy, Cupich and Tobin, and the tearing up of the treacherous Secret Accord with the Homicidal Communist Party of China, to name several chores on the “to-do” list.
Until those things happen, I see no need to perceive anything about the Pontiff Leo, other than the default persona of “Pontiff Francis 2.0.”
“12 year carnival of contempt by the ringmaster and now deceased Pontiff Francis.”
I would suggest that started earlier and therefore was longer than his election and reign as Pope, respectively. At least in 2006 when he insubordinately took public issue with Benedict over Regensburg and whenever he allowed the infamous “clown Mass” if that occurred prior.
It is troublesome to think that St. Francis, who was said to have a vision of Christ telling him “Francis, go and rebuild my Church.” had his name appropriated by somebody who enjoined others to “make a mess” and seemed to live by those words.
Pitch:
I certainly agree Jorge Bergoglio was a fraud long before he ran for Pontiff on “Team-McCarrick.”
I have Sir Henry Sire’s book (The Dictator Pope) exposing “His Excellency” and “His Eminence” Bergoglio. A particularly dark episode is Bergoglio’s sinister and secret defense campaign to defend his pal the sex-abuser “Rev.” Julio Grassi, convicted rapist of orphans in his “orphan ministry” in Argentina, sentenced to 15 years prison by the Argentine Supreme Court. One of the supreme court justices is quoted testifying that “His Excellency” Bergoglio publicly declared that he would take no part in tbe Grassi affair, trusting fully to the hands of the law and the courts, meanwhile secretly, Bergoglio paid millions to a coven of lawyers who wrote a book-sized report delivered by Bergoglio directly, in secret, to the court justices, smearing the alleged victims, in an effort to get the court to secretly abandon the prosecution of Grassi. The nudges weren’t having any of Bergoglio’s witchcraft, and ignored his attempt at deceitfully influencing the judges, and Grassi was trued and convicted. I understand Grassi remains “undisciplined” in any manner by the Argentinian Church, and is instead, “a priest in good standing,” waiting to “return to his priestly duties” in Argentina. (Perhaps that last thing I wrote may have changed, but I am unaware of any news contradicting that.)
And I believe the mass you were referring to was actually “the tango mass?” Or perhaps Bergoglio presided at “both forms?”
In any case, be appears yo have been a total fraud.
I gather that you too are not an enthusiast of our journey towards universal exoneration.
Pope Leo would seem to have deicded on “the synodal path” for ecumenism, something made explicit last year, May 2025, see the first link VATICAN.VA Address to Other Churches, where he says inter alia,
‘ Aware, moreover, that synodality and ecumenism are closely linked, I would like to assure you of my intention to continue Pope Francis’ commitment to promoting the synodal nature of the Catholic Church and developing new and concrete forms for an ever stronger synodality in ecumenical relations.
Our common path can and must also be understood in the broad sense of involving everyone, in the spirit of human fraternity that I mentioned above. Now is the time for dialogue and building bridges. I am therefore pleased and grateful for the presence of representatives of other religious traditions, who share the search for God and his will, which is always and only the will of love and life for men and women and for all creatures. ‘
The “synodality insight for the Church” would then be the underlying characterization for the priesthood, even though, at least from a news report, it was not mentioned in the Pope’s recent address to priests of Madrid. As reported by EWTN, Sunday 25 January 2026, the Pope reiterated the position in his homily:
‘ The pontiff looked back to the 1700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea in 2025.
Pope Leo XIV on Sunday urged Christians to deepen their common witness by growing in “ecumenical synodal practices,” recalling the shared recitation of the Nicene Creed at Nicaea and thanking the Churches in Armenia for preparing this year’s resources for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
The pope made the appeal during the celebration of Second Vespers for the Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul at the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, marking the close of the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.
Standing near the tomb of the Apostle to the Gentiles, Leo said that Paul’s mission “is also the mission of all Christians today: to proclaim Christ and to invite everyone to place their trust in him.” ‘
At WHERE PETER IS, A. Likoudis January 21 2026 is suggesting there are 10 “lines of continuity with Pope Francis”, see the last link.
ADDRESS OF THE HOLY FATHER TO REPRESENTATIVES OF OTHER CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES, AND OTHER RELIGIONS
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiv/en/speeches/2025/may/documents/20250519-altre-religioni.html
https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2026/02/10/leo-xiv-offers-guidance-to-priests-of-the-archdiocese-of-madrid/
https://ewtnvatican.com/articles/pope-leo-xiv-synodality-ecumenism
https://wherepeteris.com/in-the-footsteps-of-francis-ten-lines-of-continuity-in-leo-xivs-church/
Well, I was never able to ask high prelates the meaning being a warm and fuzzy cliché meister, except one, and he became hysterically irrational and started poking me in the face with his index finger trying to tell to shut up. So I’ll ask you. What “common path” must we be obligated to share with defiantly unrepentant serial murderers, rapists, especially those of small children and those who traffic them, drug traffickers, and those who rationalize the mass slaughter of inconvenient life?
On a related manner, how is “dialogue” accomplished among billions of people, especially when, to use your reference, “in the broad sense of involving everyone,” it is so difficult to get most everyone to acknowledge their status as sinners, let alone acknowledge their big sins, let alone consider that the doctrines that Catholics are now denying and throwing in the garbage can, can no longer be a force for circumventing our individual or collective pathways of delusion?
And one more point. Lines of continuity with the worst and most heretical pope in history are not something to be valued.
Francis was never “where Peter is.”
Agree 100%.
Mr. Baker, thanks. The quoted line re “involving everyone” is from the Pope in the first link, Address to Churches etc. My post is meant to show what is going on, or could be unfolding; I don’t mean to directly promote what is shown, as mine too. Fr. Morello expressed some reserve about the Pope’s direction and Mr. Beaulieu suggests his own view that the Pope could be turning good reforms shortly. I might have done better to have expressed my meaning explicitly with the post.
About “common path”, the Apostle tells the leaders and more senior ones not to mislead the junior members and not to run risk, even, of creating scandal. A question of maturity in grace, engaging difficult sinners is not for everyone and so yes, the swamping of leadership positions with personalities who reveal major defect in discretion also “teaching” defect of discretion and other wrongs to the junior members, would be most serious among the distortions and failings.
Maybe some allowance should be made for the fact that we live in a world of immediacy communications, very hard to arrange discreet encounter of mercy. Well then, if we are looking for such discreet encounter, synodalism is contrary.
Mr. Baker, thanks. The quoted line re “involving everyone” is from the Pope in the first link, Address to Churches etc. My post is meant to show what is going on, or could be unfolding; I don’t mean to directly promote what is shown, as mine too. Fr. Morello expressed some reserve about the Pope’s direction and Mr. Beaulieu suggests his own view that the Pope could be turning good reforms shortly. I might have done better to have expressed my meaning explicitly with the post.
So the one on “lines of continuity” would be indicating how much people are pressing for the Pope Francis “development”. You see.
About “common path”, the Apostle tells the leaders and more senior ones not to mislead the junior members and not to run risk, even, of creating scandal. A question of maturity in grace, engaging difficult sinners is not for everyone and so yes, the swamping of leadership positions with personalities who reveal major defect in discretion also “teaching” defect of discretion and other wrongs to the junior members, would be most serious among the distortions and failings.
Maybe some allowance should be made for the fact that we live in a world of immediacy communications, very hard to arrange discreet encounter of mercy. Well then, if we are looking for such discreet encounter, synodalism is contrary.
https://bigmodernism.substack.com/p/vatican-i-supreme-for-the-sspx-symbolic?publication_id=4940692&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=4d8ftt&utm_medium=email
“Oh what a tangled web they weave…”
“You cannot be My Disciples if you do not Abide In My Word.” -The Charitable Anathema Of Jesus The Christ.
The SSPX should simple state that by doing away with Christ’s Charitable Anathema, under the erroneous notion that The Holy Spirit was Calling Christ’s Church to become “conciliar”Vatican II, changed A Major Dogma Of The Catholic Church, in essence, the fact that The Catholic Church, Instituted By Christ, In The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, The Spirit Of Perfect Divine Eternal Infinite Love Between The Father And His Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Who Proceeds From Both The Father And Hs Only Begotten Son, Jesus The Christ, Is “The Universal Sacrament Of Salvation”, thus, in essence, denying every previous legitimate Catholic Council that came before, by its denial of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching Of The Magisterium, grounded in Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, The Deposit Of Faith that Christ Himself Entrusted to His One, Holy, Catholic , And Apostolic Church, in The Unity Of The Holy Ghost, for The Salvation Of Souls. In essence, when you hold fast to The Deposit Of Faith, you hold fast to Traditional.
The SSPX should simply state we cannot be in schism with Christ and His One, Holy, Catholic, And Apostolic Church because we hold fast to Tradition.