On July 17, Leo XIV (as he is affectionately known by many) delivered an address to “participants of the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical pilgrimage” from the U.S., including the schismatic Metropolitan Elpidophoros and Cardinal Nighty-Night Tobin.
Addressing his guests, Leo said:
Unity among those who believe in Christ is one of the signs of God’s gift of consolation; Scripture promises that “in Jerusalem you will be comforted” (Is 66:13). Rome, Constantinople and all the other Sees, are not called to vie for primacy, lest we risk finding ourselves like the disciples who along the way, even as Jesus was announcing his coming passion, argued about which of them was the greatest (cf. Mk 9:33-37).
A statement such as this coming from a putative pope would be reprehensible, regardless of the venue in which it is offered, insofar as it is wide open to being understood as a denial Roman primacy (aka papal primacy). Furthermore, it also falsely implies that unity presently exists between “Rome, Constantinople and all the other Sees” in the same degree to which it existed among the Apostles, despite their bickering.
In the present case, Leo’s statement is scandalous in the extreme given that these comments were directed toward persons known primarily for their steadfast rejection of papal primacy, i.e., this is precisely the error that constitutes the fundamental cause of their separation from the one true Church of Christ.
Novus Ordo Watch published a thorough examination of the Church’s doctrine on the matter, including citations from the First Vatican Council that contain no less than three anathemas against any who would contradict the Roman Pontiff’s primacy over the universal Church. I strongly encourage you to read this article in its fullness there.
In response to the Novus Ordo Watch article, certain commentators – evidently hungover from, if not still drunk on – Leophoria, jumped in to defend Bergoglio’s mini-me. For example, one tradservative priest by the name of Paul Joseph Martin McDonald weighed in with the following on Facebook:
Rome does not need to ‘vie’ for a primacy it already necessarily has.
McDonald wasn’t the only commenter to suggest that Leo, clever son-of-a-gun that he is, was actually affirming Rome’s primacy, but in a way that wouldn’t disturb his listeners!
[NOTE: After diligent research, I was unable to find any evidence that Fr. McDonald used similar logic to criticize Leo for telling this same group of schismatic heretics: “For our part, we too must continue to implore from the Paraclete, the Consoler, the grace to pursue the path of unity and fraternal charity.” Why pursue a path to something the one true Church of Christ already necessarily has? ]
In any case, it’s difficult to imagine that anyone with a functioning brain honestly believes that Leo the Bergoglian Lion was actually defending papal primacy.
Perhaps more importantly, it is entirely unreasonable to imagine that this is how his comment was received and understood by the audience that he was addressing. In fact, one can be certain that it was understood in the exact opposite way.
Directly addressing persons who, either by choice or by ignorance, are outside of the solitary Ark of salvation with words that serve only to confirm them in their error is the last thing a true Successor of Peter would do.
So, what did Leo actually mean to teach at that moment?
This is far more than just a rhetorical question, rather, it is a crucial question, one that demands a direct and eminently clear answer for the benefit of all who are at risk of being misled.
What is at stake in this matter concerns the very identity of the Church, her exclusive God-given gifts and prerogatives.
The Catholic Encyclopedia article on “The Church” provides an excellent synopsis on related matters:
As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ … The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of faith and morals. Moreover, theologians are agreed that the gift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from false doctrine.
Many confused persons conflate the infallibility of the Church with teaching acts that are an expression of papal infallibility and those dogmas of the Faith that consist of revealed truths that have been solemnly defined as such.
As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, however, the Church’s infallibility extends beyond her ability to promulgate infallible dogmatic definitions. It also includes her teaching on matters not properly revealed but so intimately related to them that she cannot err in teaching these doctrines as well.
This truth is expressed in the Roman Catechism as such:
“This Spirit, first imparted to the Apostles, has by the infinite goodness of God always continued in the Church. And just as this one Church cannot err in faith or morals, since it is guided by the Holy Ghost; so, on the contrary, all other societies arrogating to themselves the name of church, must necessarily, because guided by the spirit of the devil, be sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.” (Roman Catechism, Emphasis added)
With this in mind, let’s consider the matter of Roman (papal) primacy. The Catholic Encyclopedia goes on to state:
Among the prerogatives conferred on His Church by Christ is the gift of indefectibility. By this term is signified, not merely that the Church will persist to the end of time, but further … It can never become corrupt in faith or in morals…
In this, we see that the Church’s indefectibility is very closely related to her infallibility. As the article continues, we find that all that has been said is intrinsic to Roman primacy:
The gift of indefectibility plainly does not guarantee each several part of the Church against heresy or apostasy. The promise is made to the corporate body. Individual Churches may become corrupt in morals, may fall into heresy, may even apostatize… Only to One particular Church is indefectibility assured, viz. to the See of Rome. To Peter, and in him to all his successors in the chief pastorate, Christ committed the task of confirming his brethren in the Faith (Luke 22:32); and thus, to the Roman Church, as Cyprian says, “faithlessness cannot gain access” (Epistle 54).
To summarize: The primacy of Rome is due to Christ’s gift of indefectibility, which renders the See of Rome, under the visible headship of the Successors of Peter, the infallible teacher of faith and morals for the Universal Church.
Let’s now return to the teaching that Leo XIV delivered to the schismatic Orthodox – Rome, Constantinople and all the other Sees, are not called to vie for primacy – words that, at the very least, may reasonably be understood as contrary to the Church’s immutable doctrine on papal primacy.
What is at stake here is the fundamental identity of the Church as Jesus Christ established it for our salvation: If Roman primacy falls, so too does the Church’s indefectibility and infallibility.
What is left is something other than the Church of Christ as Our Lord constituted it; a church that can err in matters of faith and morals; a church over which the gates of Hell can prevail, and a church that can lead poor souls to eternal death.
Sound familiar?
It should. It describes the conciliar church presently in occupation of the Vatican to a tee.
This being so, in a certain sense, Leo deserves recognition for speaking from the heart, for sharing his firmly held, albeit gravely erroneous, beliefs without apology. You see, for Leo and his conciliar collaborators, the church to which they belong, the same over which he reigns, does not believe that it enjoys an exclusive claim to primacy, nor does it believe that it possesses the gifts of indefectibility and infallibility, and indeed it does not.
The reason it does not is because theirs is not the Catholic religion. It is a false religion that, to draw from the Roman Catechism, is held by a society that merely arrogated to itself the name of church, one guided by the spirit of the devil and, therefore, is demonstrably sunk in the most pernicious errors, both doctrinal and moral.
