09-05-2025, 08:44 AM
Fr. Claude Barthe has been cited here on The Catacombs in the past for his role as an [indult/conservative] authority on the traditional liturgy. A brief summary:
A commentary by Archbishop Viganò regarding this essay of Fr. Barthe's will follow below.
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Lk 22:31-32).
We have stated, on a previous occasion, that the Bergoglian pontificate, with all its inflatedness, could well constitute, if not the terminal phase of the post-Vatican II era, at least the approach of its end. Provided, of course, that there are Churchmen with the determination necessary for making a clean break. Failing that, and in the meantime, we can hope for the adoption of a kind of realistically transitional stage, by virtue of which whatever remains of vital forces within the Church would be allowed to thrive. Ultimately, however, there must needs be a return to the magisterial order to which the Church of Christ aspires, and for which its pastors must prepare.
A pope to “ease tensions”
The successive post-conciliar popes have focused all their efforts on overcoming the divisions inevitably caused by the liberal adulteration of ecclesiological doctrine and, from the outset of Francis’ pontificate, that of the doctrine regarding marriage. These doctrinal divisions are exemplified by the fracturing caused by the liturgical reform, which likewise constituted a liberal watering-down. No “hermeneutic” has sufficed to piece the shattered vessel back together again. The Church’s missionary message has not ceased to evanesce, nor the number of its priests and faithful to dwindle. Moreover, the style of action of Francis’ pontificate has provoked widespread chaos.
It is therefore now, more than ever, that a restoring of unity is called for by the new pope, who is a man of reflection, prayer and attentive listening, while at the same time being inscrutable. But what sort of unity? The one envisioned by those responsible for elevating him to the pontificate, all of whom belong to the conciliar cohort, and who, moreover, are all in the Bergoglian vein, namely an appeased consensus including adherence to the main conciliar “attainments”? Or the unity founded upon the Word of God, “effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword” (Heb 4:12)?
In the final days before the conclave began in May, Italian journalists noted that Cardinal Prevost, an earnest and reserved prelate in his own right, who was designated by those in the know as the one who would be elevated to the throne of Peter, seemed to have become particularly apprehensive. One might have been so for matters less grave. The prospect of taking charge of the government of a Church in its current state was bound to fill one with fear and trembling.
The king-making cardinals had sought a man of continuity, but with a difference. Despite some past friction, Pope Francis had been able to recognize the qualities of this Augustinian religious. Indeed, one cannot deny that Francis had the charisma and flair of a leader, including on this point, namely that of being able to prepare a different, pacifying successor. In a very short space of time, he had elevated Robert Francis Prevost, of whom he had really taken note in 2018 during his apostolic visit to Peru, to the highest posts. In 2023, he gave this Apostolic Administrator (2013), and then Bishop (2014) of Chiclayo, the post of Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, in other words the essential office of bishop-maker – and also bishop-breaker – within the Roman government, an office even more essential under the pontificate of Francis who, with a determined political will, applied himself to renewing the episcopal body, as well as the college of cardinals. Less than two years prior to his elevation to the throne of Peter, he became Prefect, Cardinal and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America[1].
With Prevost, who is more Peruvian than American, Latin America came to the Curia. At his side was a key figure, the highly influential Mgr Ilson de Jesus Montanari, a 65-year-old Brazilian prelate, Secretary of the Dicastery for Bishops, an efficient civil servant, a Bergoglian of the inner circle, appointed by Francis in 2013. The latter oversaw—and still oversees—the preparation of files on bishops to be appointed as well as those to be dismissed; as Secretary of the Dicastery for Bishops, he also became Secretary of the College of Cardinals, and was thus called upon to be the secretary of the conclave. Francis also appointed him vice-camerlengo of the Church (the camerlengo in this case being Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was in charge of temporal matters during the vacancy of the See). All in all, Montanari, who had become a kind of executive secretary to the Bergoglian government, played a major role in the period of the vacant See and should normally become a cardinal when Leo XIV makes his first promotion.
Latin American cardinals appear to have played a major role in Cardinal Prevost’s promotion. Cardinal Versaldi, former Prefect of the Congregation for Education, also paved the way to his pontificate. One may wonder whether, after the first ballot, Cardinal Hollerich negotiated Pietro Parolin’s withdrawal in favor of Robert F. Prevost, thus ensuring him a landslide election. After the election, Lucio Caracciolo, editor of the geopolitical magazine Limes, presented the new pope as the one chosen to avert the risk of the disintegration of Catholicism[2]. And Alberto Melloni, historian and leader of the Bologna School, emphasized his ability to “ease tensions” and “smooth out rough edges”[3].
On the 4th of May, four days before the election, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, former editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, published an article in La Repubblica (which we have previously quoted[4]), announcing the agenda for the new pontificate, in which he writes that “the real challenge is not unity but diversity.” Then he pursues: “Let us commit ourselves to making of our differences a laboratory of unity and communion, of fraternity and reconciliation, so that everyone in the Church, with his personal history, learns to walk with others.”[5] The Church, like any collective reality, can no longer “express itself in a uniform and monochordal way,” says Spadaro; “cohesion cannot be sought in uniformity, but in the capacity to welcome and harmonize multiplicity.”
In all likelihood, Leo XIV has a less broad conception of harmonizable multiplicity than Antonio Spadaro, but it was indeed with this aim – to harmonize, to pacify – that he was elevated to the Sovereign Pontificate. His first message, on the evening of his election, contained the word “peace” ten times, and he invited us to “build bridges through dialogue, through encounter.” His style and vocabulary, much more spiritual than those of his predecessor, underlined this desire for pacification. His character is a happy blend of simplicity, closeness to the people, and a desire to embody the office with its symbolic attributes.
Prevost’s assurance that the Church’s commitment to the synodal process would continue was a major factor in his election. Continuity, therefore, but stabilized by a canonical and spiritual refocusing. For example, Fr Alberto Royo Mejía, historian of the contemporary saints, promoter of the faith at the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, is much appreciated by the new pontiff, as is Fr Clodovis Boff, a Franciscan from Brazil, who was one of the well-known proponents of liberation theology along with his brother Leonardo, the latter having since left the clerical state. A month after Prevost’s election, on 13 June, Clodovis Boff addressed an open letter to all the bishops of CELAM, the Latin American Episcopal Council[6], whose 40th ordinary assembly had just ended, and to which Leo XIV had addressed a message. Clodovis challenged them on this subject, asking them: Have you well understood what the Pope is asking of you? “You, the bishops of CELAM, keep repeating the same worn-out refrain: social commitment and nothing but social commitment. And you’ve been doing that for 50 years.” He then asked them to spread “the good news of God, Christ and his Spirit,” that of “grace and salvation,” of “prayer and adoration, of piety towards the Mother of the Lord” and other similar themes.
It is important to grasp the complexity of such a stance and to realize that it does not involve straying far from the Bergoglian line. In 2007, when the 5th General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate was held at the Brazilian Marian shrine of Aparecida, Clodovis Boff, together with the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who chaired the commission responsible for drafting the conference conclusions, took part in the offensive against the “socializing reductionism” of liberation theology. Contrary to popular belief, Jorge Bergoglio, the Peronist, was anti-Marxist.
A liberalization of the traditional liturgy as a transitional stage?
If the inscrutable Leo XIV is intended to “ease tensions”, a greater amount of freedom may open up for all tendencies, in a controlled way, after cautious delays. Yet, everyone is hoping for this, from the German prelates, led by the very progressive Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, to the supporters of the traditional liturgy.
That the traditional liturgy should be given some breathing space is all the more plausible given that it will be easier for Leo XIV to grant those attached to it freedoms that can be analyzed as appeasing tolerances, as bridges built to welcome everyone, without his having to take a position on the substance of the matter. It is true that in France, numerous bishops, for whom the traditional world is perceived as constituting unbearable competition, lack any readiness for this and hold to a line that is as restrictive as is possible. Their desire to reduce to a minimum the presence in their dioceses of clergy specialized in the ancient liturgy and capable of providing all other pastoral and catechetical care, will persist, even if the balance of power gradually becomes more favorable to the ancient rite, for example in provincial towns.
In fact, if Leo XIV, who without any qualms espouses a conciliar mindset, does not have the closeness to a part of the traditional world that Benedict XVI had acquired, his desire for pacification could align with that of the proponents of a “leftward-leaning” liberalism. Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference and a prominent member of the Sant’Egidio Community, is a good example of this kind of openness, which can be likened to the thinking of Father Spadaro. In the above-quoted article, Spadaro went so far as to welcome the fact that Pope Francis conceded official sacramental possibilities to the Society of St. Pius X. As for Cardinal Zuppi, he has not hesitated to celebrate pontifically in the ancient rite, and even went so far as to preside over the opening ceremony of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to Rome in 2022. Unlike the French bishops, who would rather see the traditionalists join the Lefebvrist world, Zuppi (and Leo XIV?) considers it better for users of the traditional liturgy to remain “inside”, rather than grow uncontrollably “outside”.
Can the new pontificate actually avoid giving greater freedom, not only to the traditionalists, but also to what is somewhat exaggeratedly dubbed “the vital forces of the Church”, the whole range of Catholic tendencies that today fill churches with the faithful, in France, for example, the Emmanuel community, the Saint-Martin community, and a number of flourishing monasteries of contemplative religious men and women?
There is, however, a paradox, even a risk, for those who call for freedom to be granted to the traditional liturgy and catechesis, for permission to be given to liturgical and doctrinal catholicity. We have already had occasion to cite the paradoxical situation that arose in the French political system in the 19th century, in which the staunchest supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern freedoms brought about by the Revolution, were constantly clamoring for the possibility to live and express themselves freely, for freedom of the press and freedom of education. All things being equal, in the ecclesial system of the 21st century, at least for the time being, an easing of the ideological despotism of the reform could be beneficial.
Yet rather than worrying about the risk which would be incurred by those opposed to the liturgical reform should greater freedom be granted to the traditional liturgy, one must above all take into consideration that, while perhaps advantageous in the short or medium term for this opposition, such leeway can ultimately only be radically dissatisfactory.
While awaiting a Pius XIII…
“Leo’s words – the content of his statements – strongly imply that he intends to continue in Pope Francis’s path of building a synodal Church. Leo has indicated that the Vatican’s agreement with China on the appointment of bishops will continue. He has also continued to promote Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ and his predecessor’s call to care for creation. Leo has drawn from the pastoral message of Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which was much maligned by critics, saying that promoting an encounter with God ‘is not a matter of giving hasty answers to difficult questions, but of drawing close to people, listening to them, and trying to understand.’”[7] The fact is that Leo XIV has been put in charge of Francis’ legacy. This legacy, conciliar in substance, if we set aside synodality, which resists any attempt at precise definition, along with ecological commitment, can be summed up in three texts: Amoris lætitia and Fiducia supplicans, on the morality of marriage, and Traditionis custodes on the traditional liturgy.
As far as the morality of marriage is concerned, we know that Leo XIV is hostile to blessings for same-sex couples. However, it should be noted that the blessings of irregular couples permitted by n° 31 of the declaration Fiducia supplicans[8] mainly concern “remarried” divorcees. The few homosexual couples who request a blessing hide the forest of adulterous couples who pressure parish priests to receive a blessing serving as a “church wedding”, and who in numerous cases obtain it. In fact, Fiducia supplicans corroborates the apostolic exhortation Amoris lætitia, which is unquestionably an endorsement of the degradation of Catholic marriage. The whole difficulty of Amoris lætitia is concentrated in n° 301[9], from which the following proposition could be drawn: Some of those who live in adultery, even if they know the norm they are transgressing, may not be in a state of mortal sin. Leo XIV is believed to uphold this Bergoglian teaching, which seriously undermines the sanctity of marriage. A skillful, indirect circumvention of this teaching will not suffice to overturn it. He will necessarily have to either approve or annul it.
For, indeed, the Church is the depository of the content of Revelation, and of the doctrine of faith and morals, to which it is necessary to adhere in order to be saved. Its unity is founded upon this doctrine, which the Pope, Successor of Peter, and the bishops, Successors of the Apostles, are mandated to teach. Under the guise of defending the faith, we cannot content ourselves with declarations that would attenuate some heterodox tenet or counterbalance it with teachings to the contrary, but which would leave the vitiated teaching in place. It is necessary, for the salvation of souls, to root out false teaching.
As for those entanglements caused by Pope Francis, are they not paradoxically providential? The obligation, if fulfilled by Leo XIV, to arbitrate on this Bergoglian legacy would provide an opportunity to return to a magisterium of full authority, disentangling, in the name of Christ, the true from the false with regard to all the controversial questions concerning familial morality, ecumenism and so on. This will entail distinguishing not only between what is Catholic and what is not, but between those who are Catholic and those who call themselves Catholic without being so. Otherwise, we will remain in the incertitude as to where the boundary is which delineates between what is outside and what is inside a Church submerged by a kind of neo-Catholicism void of dogma.
Conceding the freedom of the liturgical tradition, as well as of all that accompanies it, is certainly eminently desirable, but merely as an interim arrangement. The real medicine that the Christian people have the right to expect from the Pope is the service of unity as such, a positive service through the definition of the truths to be believed, a negative service through the condemnation of the errors to be repudiated. For if the objective rule of the one faith is the Word of God, it is for the magisterium of the pope alone, or for the pope and the bishops united to him, to make known the content of the message of Revelation, and oblige us to adhere to it. Is it not the task of the Successor of Peter to confirm his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31-32)? It is, indeed, and to confirm his brother bishops first and foremost. Furthermore, it is for his brothers in the episcopate to inquire and seek answers from him, to appeal to him and even to precede him in doctrinal clarifications and condemnations, under the ultimate arbitration of his definitive word as Successor of Peter.
In view of this great return to the exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium – as well as perhaps the solemn magisterium – instead of that self-limiting magisterium which the pastoral magisterium represents, the extremely sensitive and vexatious issue of the liturgical quarrel could play a decisive role. Thanks to Pope Bergoglio, the issue has become very simple: the entire repressive approach of Traditionis custodes is in fact based on its article 1: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The adage lex orandi, lex credendi, coined at the time of the Pelagian crisis with regard to the power of grace, means that the Church’s prayers contain formulas that express what she believes.
This adage holds true as a general rule[10]. According to Traditionis custodes, as a result of the reform, the Roman liturgy prior to this reform would have lost its status as lex orandi. It is worth reiterating: it is eminently desirable that the new pope should directly or indirectly grant this liturgy greater freedom. But having done so, it remains true that the following proposition is henceforth taught in the Church: The liturgical books in force prior to Paul VI’s reform do not express the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. The question that the Church’s magisterium is now charged with settling is the following: is this proposition true or false? If the latter, it must be condemned. With all the consequences that this will entail.
- Fr. Claude Barthe
Footnotes
[1] We are under no obligation to take as gospel truth the revelations that Helder Red extracted from a cardinal the day following the conclave and which he reports in RomaToday, one of the editions of the online daily Today, on 21 July, but they do correspond to the discourse of the Bergoglians: “Prevost was Bergoglio’s only candidate. Shortly before his death, this old Argentine leader summoned all the cardinals he could trust and told them: ‘Please, after me, let it be the American’s turn. As a missionary and an Augustinian, he will be what is best for the universal Church.’ […] What was needed was a ‘normalizer’, someone who would reassure the Curia, even if he wasn’t part of it, who would reassure the progressives, because he wasn’t a traditionalist, and who would reassure the traditionalists, because he was perceived as a moderate. […] In short, what was needed was someone who could unite, if you will, even with a little dullness, but after the fireworks, a little silence is good too. […] It’s the best choice, certainly less lively, but we need someone to consolidate Francis’ attainments, we need a Paul VI who reassures and confirms. Prevost, for his part, is a worthy figure, very earnest, accommodating, a missionary at heart.”
[2] Interview in La Repubblica, 10 June 2025.
[3] Le Monde, opinion column, 10 May 2025.
[4] Res Novae, 8 May 2025.
[5] Leo XIV, homily of 29 June, Zenit, 30 June 2025.
[6] Carta-ao-CELAM-Frei-Clodovis-Boff.pdf.
[7] Mike Lewis, “Projecting on the Pontiff: Pope Leo’s ‘Shift in Tone’”, Where Peter Is, 19 July 2025.
[8] “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
[9] “For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain ‘irregular’ situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
[10] For example, the Council of Trent’s teaching on the Mass as a “true and real (verum et proprium) sacrifice” (Dz 1751) has its counterpart in the Roman Mass’s accumulation of sacrificial prayers, in force until Vatican II.
Quote:Fr Claude Barthe is a French Catholic priest and essayist, born on August 24, 1947. He is known for his work in liturgical studies and his traditionalist views within the Catholic Church. Barthe has been a prominent figure in discussions surrounding the Church's liturgical practices, particularly concerning the traditional Latin Mass. He is the main chaplain of the Populus Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to Rome. [...]
Barthe has been critical of certain developments within the Church, particularly the Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia. He argued that Chapter VIII of the document is incompatible with the Church's traditional doctrine, stating that it introduces a new element that cannot be reconciled with the Church's teaching on marriage and the sacraments. He has also expressed concern about the status of traditionalist groups, such as the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), noting that the idea of "imperfect communion" is mistaken because communion is not marked by degrees. He has stated that the Holy See's recent actions, including the motu proprio, are aimed at dismantling traditional liturgical celebrations and targeting communities that produce priests for these rites.
A commentary by Archbishop Viganò regarding this essay of Fr. Barthe's will follow below.
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” (Lk 22:31-32).
We have stated, on a previous occasion, that the Bergoglian pontificate, with all its inflatedness, could well constitute, if not the terminal phase of the post-Vatican II era, at least the approach of its end. Provided, of course, that there are Churchmen with the determination necessary for making a clean break. Failing that, and in the meantime, we can hope for the adoption of a kind of realistically transitional stage, by virtue of which whatever remains of vital forces within the Church would be allowed to thrive. Ultimately, however, there must needs be a return to the magisterial order to which the Church of Christ aspires, and for which its pastors must prepare.
A pope to “ease tensions”
The successive post-conciliar popes have focused all their efforts on overcoming the divisions inevitably caused by the liberal adulteration of ecclesiological doctrine and, from the outset of Francis’ pontificate, that of the doctrine regarding marriage. These doctrinal divisions are exemplified by the fracturing caused by the liturgical reform, which likewise constituted a liberal watering-down. No “hermeneutic” has sufficed to piece the shattered vessel back together again. The Church’s missionary message has not ceased to evanesce, nor the number of its priests and faithful to dwindle. Moreover, the style of action of Francis’ pontificate has provoked widespread chaos.
It is therefore now, more than ever, that a restoring of unity is called for by the new pope, who is a man of reflection, prayer and attentive listening, while at the same time being inscrutable. But what sort of unity? The one envisioned by those responsible for elevating him to the pontificate, all of whom belong to the conciliar cohort, and who, moreover, are all in the Bergoglian vein, namely an appeased consensus including adherence to the main conciliar “attainments”? Or the unity founded upon the Word of God, “effectual, and more piercing than any two edged sword” (Heb 4:12)?
In the final days before the conclave began in May, Italian journalists noted that Cardinal Prevost, an earnest and reserved prelate in his own right, who was designated by those in the know as the one who would be elevated to the throne of Peter, seemed to have become particularly apprehensive. One might have been so for matters less grave. The prospect of taking charge of the government of a Church in its current state was bound to fill one with fear and trembling.
The king-making cardinals had sought a man of continuity, but with a difference. Despite some past friction, Pope Francis had been able to recognize the qualities of this Augustinian religious. Indeed, one cannot deny that Francis had the charisma and flair of a leader, including on this point, namely that of being able to prepare a different, pacifying successor. In a very short space of time, he had elevated Robert Francis Prevost, of whom he had really taken note in 2018 during his apostolic visit to Peru, to the highest posts. In 2023, he gave this Apostolic Administrator (2013), and then Bishop (2014) of Chiclayo, the post of Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops, in other words the essential office of bishop-maker – and also bishop-breaker – within the Roman government, an office even more essential under the pontificate of Francis who, with a determined political will, applied himself to renewing the episcopal body, as well as the college of cardinals. Less than two years prior to his elevation to the throne of Peter, he became Prefect, Cardinal and President of the Pontifical Commission for Latin America[1].
With Prevost, who is more Peruvian than American, Latin America came to the Curia. At his side was a key figure, the highly influential Mgr Ilson de Jesus Montanari, a 65-year-old Brazilian prelate, Secretary of the Dicastery for Bishops, an efficient civil servant, a Bergoglian of the inner circle, appointed by Francis in 2013. The latter oversaw—and still oversees—the preparation of files on bishops to be appointed as well as those to be dismissed; as Secretary of the Dicastery for Bishops, he also became Secretary of the College of Cardinals, and was thus called upon to be the secretary of the conclave. Francis also appointed him vice-camerlengo of the Church (the camerlengo in this case being Cardinal Kevin Farrell, who was in charge of temporal matters during the vacancy of the See). All in all, Montanari, who had become a kind of executive secretary to the Bergoglian government, played a major role in the period of the vacant See and should normally become a cardinal when Leo XIV makes his first promotion.
Latin American cardinals appear to have played a major role in Cardinal Prevost’s promotion. Cardinal Versaldi, former Prefect of the Congregation for Education, also paved the way to his pontificate. One may wonder whether, after the first ballot, Cardinal Hollerich negotiated Pietro Parolin’s withdrawal in favor of Robert F. Prevost, thus ensuring him a landslide election. After the election, Lucio Caracciolo, editor of the geopolitical magazine Limes, presented the new pope as the one chosen to avert the risk of the disintegration of Catholicism[2]. And Alberto Melloni, historian and leader of the Bologna School, emphasized his ability to “ease tensions” and “smooth out rough edges”[3].
On the 4th of May, four days before the election, Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, of the Dicastery for Culture and Education, former editor of La Civiltà Cattolica, published an article in La Repubblica (which we have previously quoted[4]), announcing the agenda for the new pontificate, in which he writes that “the real challenge is not unity but diversity.” Then he pursues: “Let us commit ourselves to making of our differences a laboratory of unity and communion, of fraternity and reconciliation, so that everyone in the Church, with his personal history, learns to walk with others.”[5] The Church, like any collective reality, can no longer “express itself in a uniform and monochordal way,” says Spadaro; “cohesion cannot be sought in uniformity, but in the capacity to welcome and harmonize multiplicity.”
In all likelihood, Leo XIV has a less broad conception of harmonizable multiplicity than Antonio Spadaro, but it was indeed with this aim – to harmonize, to pacify – that he was elevated to the Sovereign Pontificate. His first message, on the evening of his election, contained the word “peace” ten times, and he invited us to “build bridges through dialogue, through encounter.” His style and vocabulary, much more spiritual than those of his predecessor, underlined this desire for pacification. His character is a happy blend of simplicity, closeness to the people, and a desire to embody the office with its symbolic attributes.
Prevost’s assurance that the Church’s commitment to the synodal process would continue was a major factor in his election. Continuity, therefore, but stabilized by a canonical and spiritual refocusing. For example, Fr Alberto Royo Mejía, historian of the contemporary saints, promoter of the faith at the Dicastery for the Causes of Saints, is much appreciated by the new pontiff, as is Fr Clodovis Boff, a Franciscan from Brazil, who was one of the well-known proponents of liberation theology along with his brother Leonardo, the latter having since left the clerical state. A month after Prevost’s election, on 13 June, Clodovis Boff addressed an open letter to all the bishops of CELAM, the Latin American Episcopal Council[6], whose 40th ordinary assembly had just ended, and to which Leo XIV had addressed a message. Clodovis challenged them on this subject, asking them: Have you well understood what the Pope is asking of you? “You, the bishops of CELAM, keep repeating the same worn-out refrain: social commitment and nothing but social commitment. And you’ve been doing that for 50 years.” He then asked them to spread “the good news of God, Christ and his Spirit,” that of “grace and salvation,” of “prayer and adoration, of piety towards the Mother of the Lord” and other similar themes.
It is important to grasp the complexity of such a stance and to realize that it does not involve straying far from the Bergoglian line. In 2007, when the 5th General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate was held at the Brazilian Marian shrine of Aparecida, Clodovis Boff, together with the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio, who chaired the commission responsible for drafting the conference conclusions, took part in the offensive against the “socializing reductionism” of liberation theology. Contrary to popular belief, Jorge Bergoglio, the Peronist, was anti-Marxist.
A liberalization of the traditional liturgy as a transitional stage?
If the inscrutable Leo XIV is intended to “ease tensions”, a greater amount of freedom may open up for all tendencies, in a controlled way, after cautious delays. Yet, everyone is hoping for this, from the German prelates, led by the very progressive Bishop Georg Bätzing of Limburg, to the supporters of the traditional liturgy.
That the traditional liturgy should be given some breathing space is all the more plausible given that it will be easier for Leo XIV to grant those attached to it freedoms that can be analyzed as appeasing tolerances, as bridges built to welcome everyone, without his having to take a position on the substance of the matter. It is true that in France, numerous bishops, for whom the traditional world is perceived as constituting unbearable competition, lack any readiness for this and hold to a line that is as restrictive as is possible. Their desire to reduce to a minimum the presence in their dioceses of clergy specialized in the ancient liturgy and capable of providing all other pastoral and catechetical care, will persist, even if the balance of power gradually becomes more favorable to the ancient rite, for example in provincial towns.
In fact, if Leo XIV, who without any qualms espouses a conciliar mindset, does not have the closeness to a part of the traditional world that Benedict XVI had acquired, his desire for pacification could align with that of the proponents of a “leftward-leaning” liberalism. Cardinal Matteo Zuppi, Archbishop of Bologna, President of the Italian Episcopal Conference and a prominent member of the Sant’Egidio Community, is a good example of this kind of openness, which can be likened to the thinking of Father Spadaro. In the above-quoted article, Spadaro went so far as to welcome the fact that Pope Francis conceded official sacramental possibilities to the Society of St. Pius X. As for Cardinal Zuppi, he has not hesitated to celebrate pontifically in the ancient rite, and even went so far as to preside over the opening ceremony of the Summorum Pontificum pilgrimage to Rome in 2022. Unlike the French bishops, who would rather see the traditionalists join the Lefebvrist world, Zuppi (and Leo XIV?) considers it better for users of the traditional liturgy to remain “inside”, rather than grow uncontrollably “outside”.
Can the new pontificate actually avoid giving greater freedom, not only to the traditionalists, but also to what is somewhat exaggeratedly dubbed “the vital forces of the Church”, the whole range of Catholic tendencies that today fill churches with the faithful, in France, for example, the Emmanuel community, the Saint-Martin community, and a number of flourishing monasteries of contemplative religious men and women?
There is, however, a paradox, even a risk, for those who call for freedom to be granted to the traditional liturgy and catechesis, for permission to be given to liturgical and doctrinal catholicity. We have already had occasion to cite the paradoxical situation that arose in the French political system in the 19th century, in which the staunchest supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern freedoms brought about by the Revolution, were constantly clamoring for the possibility to live and express themselves freely, for freedom of the press and freedom of education. All things being equal, in the ecclesial system of the 21st century, at least for the time being, an easing of the ideological despotism of the reform could be beneficial.
Yet rather than worrying about the risk which would be incurred by those opposed to the liturgical reform should greater freedom be granted to the traditional liturgy, one must above all take into consideration that, while perhaps advantageous in the short or medium term for this opposition, such leeway can ultimately only be radically dissatisfactory.
While awaiting a Pius XIII…
“Leo’s words – the content of his statements – strongly imply that he intends to continue in Pope Francis’s path of building a synodal Church. Leo has indicated that the Vatican’s agreement with China on the appointment of bishops will continue. He has also continued to promote Francis’s encyclical Laudato Si’ and his predecessor’s call to care for creation. Leo has drawn from the pastoral message of Francis’s exhortation Amoris Laetitia, which was much maligned by critics, saying that promoting an encounter with God ‘is not a matter of giving hasty answers to difficult questions, but of drawing close to people, listening to them, and trying to understand.’”[7] The fact is that Leo XIV has been put in charge of Francis’ legacy. This legacy, conciliar in substance, if we set aside synodality, which resists any attempt at precise definition, along with ecological commitment, can be summed up in three texts: Amoris lætitia and Fiducia supplicans, on the morality of marriage, and Traditionis custodes on the traditional liturgy.
As far as the morality of marriage is concerned, we know that Leo XIV is hostile to blessings for same-sex couples. However, it should be noted that the blessings of irregular couples permitted by n° 31 of the declaration Fiducia supplicans[8] mainly concern “remarried” divorcees. The few homosexual couples who request a blessing hide the forest of adulterous couples who pressure parish priests to receive a blessing serving as a “church wedding”, and who in numerous cases obtain it. In fact, Fiducia supplicans corroborates the apostolic exhortation Amoris lætitia, which is unquestionably an endorsement of the degradation of Catholic marriage. The whole difficulty of Amoris lætitia is concentrated in n° 301[9], from which the following proposition could be drawn: Some of those who live in adultery, even if they know the norm they are transgressing, may not be in a state of mortal sin. Leo XIV is believed to uphold this Bergoglian teaching, which seriously undermines the sanctity of marriage. A skillful, indirect circumvention of this teaching will not suffice to overturn it. He will necessarily have to either approve or annul it.
For, indeed, the Church is the depository of the content of Revelation, and of the doctrine of faith and morals, to which it is necessary to adhere in order to be saved. Its unity is founded upon this doctrine, which the Pope, Successor of Peter, and the bishops, Successors of the Apostles, are mandated to teach. Under the guise of defending the faith, we cannot content ourselves with declarations that would attenuate some heterodox tenet or counterbalance it with teachings to the contrary, but which would leave the vitiated teaching in place. It is necessary, for the salvation of souls, to root out false teaching.
As for those entanglements caused by Pope Francis, are they not paradoxically providential? The obligation, if fulfilled by Leo XIV, to arbitrate on this Bergoglian legacy would provide an opportunity to return to a magisterium of full authority, disentangling, in the name of Christ, the true from the false with regard to all the controversial questions concerning familial morality, ecumenism and so on. This will entail distinguishing not only between what is Catholic and what is not, but between those who are Catholic and those who call themselves Catholic without being so. Otherwise, we will remain in the incertitude as to where the boundary is which delineates between what is outside and what is inside a Church submerged by a kind of neo-Catholicism void of dogma.
Conceding the freedom of the liturgical tradition, as well as of all that accompanies it, is certainly eminently desirable, but merely as an interim arrangement. The real medicine that the Christian people have the right to expect from the Pope is the service of unity as such, a positive service through the definition of the truths to be believed, a negative service through the condemnation of the errors to be repudiated. For if the objective rule of the one faith is the Word of God, it is for the magisterium of the pope alone, or for the pope and the bishops united to him, to make known the content of the message of Revelation, and oblige us to adhere to it. Is it not the task of the Successor of Peter to confirm his brethren (cf. Lk 22:31-32)? It is, indeed, and to confirm his brother bishops first and foremost. Furthermore, it is for his brothers in the episcopate to inquire and seek answers from him, to appeal to him and even to precede him in doctrinal clarifications and condemnations, under the ultimate arbitration of his definitive word as Successor of Peter.
In view of this great return to the exercise of the ordinary and universal magisterium – as well as perhaps the solemn magisterium – instead of that self-limiting magisterium which the pastoral magisterium represents, the extremely sensitive and vexatious issue of the liturgical quarrel could play a decisive role. Thanks to Pope Bergoglio, the issue has become very simple: the entire repressive approach of Traditionis custodes is in fact based on its article 1: “The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.” The adage lex orandi, lex credendi, coined at the time of the Pelagian crisis with regard to the power of grace, means that the Church’s prayers contain formulas that express what she believes.
This adage holds true as a general rule[10]. According to Traditionis custodes, as a result of the reform, the Roman liturgy prior to this reform would have lost its status as lex orandi. It is worth reiterating: it is eminently desirable that the new pope should directly or indirectly grant this liturgy greater freedom. But having done so, it remains true that the following proposition is henceforth taught in the Church: The liturgical books in force prior to Paul VI’s reform do not express the lex orandi of the Roman Rite. The question that the Church’s magisterium is now charged with settling is the following: is this proposition true or false? If the latter, it must be condemned. With all the consequences that this will entail.
- Fr. Claude Barthe
Footnotes
[1] We are under no obligation to take as gospel truth the revelations that Helder Red extracted from a cardinal the day following the conclave and which he reports in RomaToday, one of the editions of the online daily Today, on 21 July, but they do correspond to the discourse of the Bergoglians: “Prevost was Bergoglio’s only candidate. Shortly before his death, this old Argentine leader summoned all the cardinals he could trust and told them: ‘Please, after me, let it be the American’s turn. As a missionary and an Augustinian, he will be what is best for the universal Church.’ […] What was needed was a ‘normalizer’, someone who would reassure the Curia, even if he wasn’t part of it, who would reassure the progressives, because he wasn’t a traditionalist, and who would reassure the traditionalists, because he was perceived as a moderate. […] In short, what was needed was someone who could unite, if you will, even with a little dullness, but after the fireworks, a little silence is good too. […] It’s the best choice, certainly less lively, but we need someone to consolidate Francis’ attainments, we need a Paul VI who reassures and confirms. Prevost, for his part, is a worthy figure, very earnest, accommodating, a missionary at heart.”
[2] Interview in La Repubblica, 10 June 2025.
[3] Le Monde, opinion column, 10 May 2025.
[4] Res Novae, 8 May 2025.
[5] Leo XIV, homily of 29 June, Zenit, 30 June 2025.
[6] Carta-ao-CELAM-Frei-Clodovis-Boff.pdf.
[7] Mike Lewis, “Projecting on the Pontiff: Pope Leo’s ‘Shift in Tone’”, Where Peter Is, 19 July 2025.
[8] “Within the horizon outlined here appears the possibility of blessings for couples in irregular situations and for couples of the same sex, the form of which should not be fixed ritually by ecclesial authorities to avoid producing confusion with the blessing proper to the Sacrament of Marriage. In such cases, a blessing may be imparted that not only has an ascending value but also involves the invocation of a blessing that descends from God upon those who—recognizing themselves to be destitute and in need of his help—do not claim a legitimation of their own status, but who beg that all that is true, good, and humanly valid in their lives and their relationships be enriched, healed, and elevated by the presence of the Holy Spirit.”
[9] “For an adequate understanding of the possibility and need of special discernment in certain ‘irregular’ situations, one thing must always be taken into account, lest anyone think that the demands of the Gospel are in any way being compromised. The Church possesses a solid body of reflection concerning mitigating factors and situations. Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values’, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.”
[10] For example, the Council of Trent’s teaching on the Mass as a “true and real (verum et proprium) sacrifice” (Dz 1751) has its counterpart in the Roman Mass’s accumulation of sacrificial prayers, in force until Vatican II.
"So let us be confident, let us not be unprepared, let us not be outflanked, let us be wise, vigilant, fighting against those who are trying to tear the faith out of our souls and morality out of our hearts, so that we may remain Catholics, remain united to the Blessed Virgin Mary, remain united to the Roman Catholic Church, remain faithful children of the Church."- Abp. Lefebvre