In the previous post, we examined comments made by Leo XIV in an address to participants of an Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical pilgrimage, wherein he said (among other controversial things):
“Rome, Constantinople and all the other Sees, are not called to vie for primacy.”
To the extent that this comment is understood as a denial of the Church’s de fide doctrine on the primacy of the Apostolic See, it is heretical. As noted, however, some have argued that Leo’s comment cannot be considered heresy since primacy already belongs to the Roman See, therefore, he was correct: primacy is not a thing for which the various Sees are called to compete.
While the latter defense of Leo’s commentary is strained to say the least, if one grants that the possibility exists, however small, that this is what he truly intended to teach, then the case is not truly closed, rather, the matter is left unresolved. As things presently stand, in other words, it is unknown precisely what Leo meant to teach and, therefore, whether or not his comments should be considered heretical.
What remains, therefore, is properly called suspicion of heresy.
Suspicion of heresy is no small matter. In fact, it was treated very specifically in the 1917 Code of Canon Law. [NOTE: Perhaps not surprisingly, it is absent from the 1983 conciliar Code.]
Two canons are particularly relevant to the present situation.
It is not enough to avoid heretical depravity, but also those errors should be diligently fled that more or less approach [heresy]; therefore, all must observe the constitutions and decrees by which these sorts of depraved opinions are proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See. CIC 1324
With respect to the above, one may reasonably ask:
- Do Leo’s comments invite heretical depravity, that is, the embrace of depraved opinions that are proscribed and prohibited by the Holy See (e.g., as taught by the First Vatican Council, as we will discuss)?
- Is it realistic to consider that Leo, by virtue of his commentary, diligently fled from the heresy held by his Orthodox guests, whereby they reject the primacy of the Roman See?
The simple fact that such questions exist indicates that suspicion of heresy most certainly exists in this case, i.e., it is certain that Leo’s words give rise to uncertainty.
On this note, the 1917 Code of Canon Law further states:
One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretics. CIC 2316
Reverend Eric F. Mackenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L., writing in his 1932 doctoral dissertation entitled, The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution (Imprimatur: William Cardinal Henry O’Connell), explains:
When, however, a judge is determining whether or not a delict has been committed [e.g., heresy], he will properly look either for confession by the delinquent, or else some act which clearly and definitely expresses a heretical mind. To this end the Code itself brands certain acts as causing only the suspicion of heresy, because they may be committed by those who preserve the faith, although more commonly they indicate some heretical tenet.
The very commission of any act which signifies heresy, e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity.
Should the suspicion of heresy arise with respect to a Roman Pontiff (as most self-identified Catholics consider Leo to be), insofar as no one on earth has authority over the pope such as to judge him, it is proper to seek clarification rather than to warn.
The confusion that Leo has created concerning Roman primacy (and Christian unity as well), even if only inadvertently, involves very serious doctrinal matters. Ignoring the lingering doubts and the grave danger they pose to souls – both Orthodox and Catholic – is simply unacceptable.
As a matter of justice for all concerned, including Leo, a transparent process should be undertaken that affords Leo the opportunity to reaffirm the true doctrine and to provide the faithful with the clarity necessary to remove all doubt on these matters once and for all. With this in mind, I have drafted and sent formally written Dubia to Rome, addressed to Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández, Prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, seeking clarification on the doubts raised by Leo’s commentary.
The cover letter addressed to Cardinal Fernández and the attached Dubia follow. As you will see, it consists of a series of seven questions that are respectfully presented, devoid of polemics, offered in the sort of tone that one might expect if coming from a faithful bishop seeking answers from the Holy See well before the conciliar revolution.
NOTE: To this end, I used the language of conciliar Rome in my correspondence, referring to Leo as “Pope” and Tucho Fernández as “Eminence,” for the simple reason that Dubia are not tools for inviting arguments but rather for obtaining answers. Anything less would have guaranteed a non-response.
No doubt some will scoff at this effort. I get it. Ever since the Dubia Brothers (Cardinal Burke, et al.) dared to question Francis about the grave errors in Amoris Laetitia, the very idea of submitting such a request to Rome has become something of a punchline in many places. Even so, the fact remains that it is the right of every Catholic – lay or ordained – to do so when warranted.
Do I expect a response?
“Expect” is far too optimistic. At the same time, a response cannot be ruled out completely. If a response should come, regardless of the answers given, it can only serve to further shine the light of truth on the present situation.
On the other hand, a non-response will do the same insofar as ignoring the Dubia would demonstrate (once more) the degree to which conciliar Rome (unlike the Church of Christ) is comfortable knowing that the faithful are needlessly wallowing in doctrinal confusion.
Defenders of Leonine Rome will likely be quick to say: Of course they didn’t respond to you, not just because you’re a layman, but because of the things that you write!
I understand that there may be some truth to that statement. As such, prior to sending my request to Rome, I briefly considered the idea of seeking churchmen – conciliar or otherwise – who may be willing to add their names to the Dubia. Though I ultimately decided against seeking co-signers, certainly there must be some prelates and other persons of note (e.g., theologians, canonists) who, despite any disagreements we may have on other important matters, recognize the gravity of the present situation and would be supportive of this effort.
If this be so, I would invite such persons to print the Dubia, and either mail them to Rome with a cover letter of their own, or email them back to me, at which point I will gladly mail a hard copy to the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Otherwise, I would encourage anyone interested to consider writing and submitting similar Dubia that also seek to remove all doubt in this matter over which so much is at stake.
The very identity of the one true Church of Christ, her unique gifts and prerogatives, rest squarely upon the dogmatic doctrine on the primacy of Rome and the matter of unity. Faithful Catholics simply cannot allow these fundamental doctrines of the faith to be obscured or otherwise overshadowed, in any way, by ambiguous words that invite confusion, no matter how well intended they may have been.
Below please find the aforementioned cover letter and Dubia.
Louie Verrecchio ~ 3210 Eves Way ~ Hampstead, MD USA 21074
July 29, 2025
Cardinal Víctor Manuel Fernández
Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith
Palazzo del Sant’Uffizio
00120 Città del Vaticano
Your Eminence,
Enclosed please find seven dubia, respectfully submitted for your consideration, that the faithful may obtain greater clarity with respect to the Church’s doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman See and Christian unity.
The Dicastery’s responses will be greatly appreciated.
In Christ Jesus,
Louie Verrecchio
Email: CatholicWord@comcast.net
Dubia
Pope Leo XIV, in an address to participants of the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical pilgrimage from the United States, given on 17 July 2025, stated:
“For our part [the Catholic Church], we too must continue to implore from the Paraclete, the Consoler, the grace to pursue the path of unity and fraternal charity. 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.”
In light of the above, the following dubia are respectfully submitted for clarification.
1. Dubia
It is asked, is the Catholic Church – uniquely, presently, visibly, and perpetually – in full possession of Christian Unity, one of the outer marks of the one true Church of Christ, along with Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity?
2. Dubia
It is asked, does the Catholic Church presently believe and profess concerning this Christian unity that “the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ, the Holy Catholic Church, of those who are separated from it”? (cf Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, no. 10)
3. Dubia
It is asked, does unity presently exist between the schismatic Orthodox See of Constantinople (and other such Sees) and the See of Rome?
4. Dubia
It is asked, does the Apostolic See (the See of Rome) and the Roman Pontiff hold a world-wide primacy such that members of the schismatic Orthodox Sees, viz. “baptized persons who, though of right belonging to the Church, have been led astray by error, or have been cut off from her by schism” (cf Pope Pius XI, Quas Primas 18) are subject to the Roman Pontiff’s full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the Universal Church.
5. Dubia
It is asked, is the following anathema issued by the First Vatican Council still in force?
“If anyone says that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed by Christ the Lord as Prince of all the Apostles and visible head of the whole Church Militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Ch. 1, No. 6)
6. Dubia
It is asked, is the following anathema issued by the First Vatican Council still in force?
“If anyone then says that it is not from the institution of Christ the Lord Himself, or by divine right that the blessed Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Ch. 2, No. 5)
7. Dubia
It is asked, is the following anathema issued by the First Vatican Council still in force:
“If anyone thus speaks, that the Roman Pontiff has only the office of inspection or direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in things which pertain to faith and morals, but also in those which pertain to the discipline and government of the Church spread over the whole world; or, that he possesses only the more important parts, but not the whole plenitude of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate, or over the churches altogether and individually, and over the pastors and the faithful altogether and individually: let him be anathema.” (Vatican I, First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Ch. 3, No. 9)
NOTE: A PDF of the Cover Letter and Dubia are available HERE
