Are well-meaning Traditional Catholics heading for a hangover?

The same people who previously would have made hour-long videos crucifying Pope Francis for exactly the same, are now seemingly living in some la-la land of denial.

I am concerned.

Let me explain at the hand of some old quotes of, and about, Pope Francis. Trust me. Read these and then I will reveal why I must rely on Pope Francis to explain my current concerns:

· "In a brief message on Tuesday, the pope urged Catholic university leaders to back the United Nations climate agenda, calling participants to “build bridges,” and encouraging them in their “synodal work of discernment” in preparation for COP30…”

· The pope called for “complete commitment to the path that the universal Church has now followed for decades in the wake of the Second Vatican Council.”

· "He further praised efforts to build “bridges of integration between the Americas and the Iberian Peninsula,” calling on Catholic institutions to pursue “ecological, social and environmental justice”—language that mirrors UN talking points…”

· “…continue and strengthen the Church’s dialogue and cooperation with the Jewish people in the spirit of the Second Vatican Council’s Declaration Nostra Aetate.”

· “In a 2023 address, he adopted Bernardin's 'seamless garment' ideology, declaring that opposing abortion necessarily entails opposing capital punishment.”

· “…stressed the need for dialogue and bridge building on Monday in an audience with the representatives of other faiths and other Churches…”

· The pope said "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” and "In a world wounded by violence and conflict, each of the communities represented here brings its own contribution of wisdom, compassion and commitment to the good of humanity and the preservation of our common home” and continued "Relations between the Catholic Church and Muslims have been marked by a growing commitment to dialogue and fraternity, fostered by esteem for these our brothers and sisters who 'worship God, who is one, living and subsistent, merciful and almighty, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has also spoken to humanity' (ibid., 3). This approach, based on mutual respect and freedom of conscience, is a solid foundation for building bridges between our communities..."

· “All of you, brothers, sisters of Rome, of Italy, of the whole world, we want to be a synodal Church.”

· “We have to know how to listen—not to judge, not to shut doors as if we hold all the truth and no one else has anything to offer,” the Pope said. From this posture of humility, he added, will come greater clarity about where the Lord is calling us.”

· And remember this headline: “Pope appoints nun as secretary of Dicastery for Institutes of Consecrated Life”

Now read them again.

Of course, none of these quotes can be attributed to, or were about the previous Pontiff, but actually by and about Pope Leo XIV. Yes, I did tinker slightly with them in as much as I replaced his name with the phrase “the pope” etc., but that is not the point. These are real quotes by and about the current pope and, well, it sounds just like the old pope.

See the dilemma? You can hardly tell the difference. If at all.

Not only that, it is pretty unambiguous stuff.

On the other hand, I am currently also having a hard time telling the difference between some Traditional Catholic commentators, and the likes of Michael Lofton (popesplainer extraordinaire) and Mike Lewis (woke leftist archenemy of Traditional Catholicism and publisher of Where Peter Is). I am not going to name the Traditional Catholic commentators since I don’t want to start a war, but the same people who previously would have made hour-long videos crucifying Pope Francis if any of the above could be attributed to him, are now seemingly living in some la-la land of denial.

Every little hope is pinned on some traditional vestments the new pope wore and a few prayers he said in Latin. On what he is “signalling” or his latest “veiled message to trads” and “if you read it through the lens of tradition” and “let’s see how he interprets synodality”! As the good people at Novus Ordo Watch rightly observed: “Funny how the burden is always on the hearer to ‘understand correctly’ and never on the speaker to teach without ambiguity”!

(On the point regarding Pope Leo’s “interpretation of synodality”: synodality isn’t an error because it is currently not favouring traditionalists, it is an error because it is diabolically and diametrically opposed to Catholic teaching! So no, let us not wait and see what Pope Leo means by synodality!)

There is just nothing concrete from the new Pontiff yet. (Yes, I know it has only been two weeks, but if I need to be patient then so do everyone else!) Has he lifted the “ban” and countered the suppression of the Traditional Latin Mass? No.

Has he corrected his predecessor’s grave, often heretical errors? No. The opposite seems true. At every opportunity, he sings his praises.

Has he been even slightly critical of Vatican II? Of course not.

What he has done though is he has confirmed synodality as the future of the Church, talked a whole lot about “dialogue”, “building bridges” and “ecumenism” and appointed a nun as head of a dicastery. And that is just off the top of my head.

Oh, and as I am writing this, I have just learned that Pope Leo has confirmed a heterodox priest as the new bishop of St. Gallen in Switzerland. According to LifeSiteNews, “Pope Leo XIV confirmed the election of heretical Fr. Beat Grögli as bishop of St. Gallen. Grögli said that ‘the women's priesthood will come,’ among other heterodox statements,” and “Grögli has reportedly expressed support for homosexual ‘blessings’ as well and claimed that the Church should ‘adapt’ its teaching on marriage, sexual morality, and contraception”.

Please read that through the lens of Tradition… I am waiting… or tell me what it is signalling… I am waiting…

And now. As if we have not done this ad nauseam before, let us take a quick look at some of the “sentiments” expressed in the above statements, and see why they are about as Catholic as the Dalai Lama:

Synodality as a Model for the Church

Traditional Catholic teaching emphatically stresses the hierarchical structure of the Church and papal primacy. For example, the First Vatican Council defined that the Pope, as St. Peter’s successor, possesses “full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Church”

Likewise, Leo XIII affirmed that it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff “to rule [the Church] with supreme power”.

Even Pius XII taught that bishops, while having genuine authority in their dioceses, remain “subordinate to the lawful authority of the Roman Pontiff”

In other words, pre‑Vatican II magisterial sources reject any idea that authority in the Church “comes up” from the laity; rather, authority is handed down from Christ through Peter. Proposals to invert this order (e.g. democratizing Church government) were condemned as modernist error (e.g. Lamentabili and Pascendi). In the traditional view, synods and councils can assist the Pope, but cannot override his supreme jurisdiction

Dialogue and Cooperation with Other Religions (Islam, Judaism, etc.)

Pre‑Vatican II teaching insisted on the uniqueness of the Catholic faith and warned against religious indifferentism. Pope Pius XI bluntly condemned the notion that “all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy,” calling it a “false opinion” and warning that those who support it “altogether abandon the divinely revealed religion”

In Mortalium Animos (1928) he specifically forbade Catholics from participating in mixed religious gatherings or common prayer, explaining that doing so is based on the error that all faiths lead to God

Even earlier, the Council of Florence (1441) declared that non‑Catholics – “pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics” – “cannot become participants in eternal life” unless they enter the Church.

In light of such teaching, traditional sources frowned on any friendly “dialogue” that implies multiple religions share equal divine approval. The only “unity” envisaged was the return of all to the one true Church; anything short of that was considered a grave error.

I am also reminded of two other quotes on the subject by two giants of traditionalism.

In a 1978 interview, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre stated:

"At this stage, it is important to state that dialogues are contrary to the doctrines of the Catholic faith. Dialogues presuppose the coming together of two equal and opposing sides; therefore, in no way could (dialogue) have anything to do with the Catholic faith. We believe and accept our faith as the only true faith in the world."

With regards to the Jewish question, Pope Pius X made the following statement during a meeting with Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, on January 25, 1904. During this audience, Herzl sought the Vatican's support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which Pope Pius X declined:

“We cannot give approval to this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The soil of Jerusalem, if it was not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot tell you anything different. The Jews have not recognized our Lord; therefore, we cannot recognize the Jewish people. And so if you come to Palestine and settle your people there, we will be ready with churches and priests to baptise all of you”.

“Ecological, Social and Environmental Justice” Language (UN Agenda)

Pre‑1962 magisterium did not frame its teaching in modern UN jargon; when it did address social or natural issues, it did so within the framework of natural law and Catholic social teaching, not secular “sustainable development” slogans. For instance, Pius XI taught that God’s natural law requires a “right order” in using the earth’s goods: “each thing [created resource] have its proper owner,” reflecting respect for property rights and stewardship

This is quite different from modern collectivist calls. In Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno, the Popes emphasized private property (in accordance with natural justice) and the moral duties of individuals, rather than wholesale adoption of any political agenda. The Church forbade ideologies (e.g. Communism) that promised utopia, and likewise would view uncritical alignment with any secular platform as suspect. Thus no pre‑Vatican II source speaks of “ecological justice” or UN schemes; rather, traditional teaching insists on order under God’s law (as in Quadragesimo), cautioning the faithful to distinguish Gospel charity from secular programs

“All Religions Worship the Same God”

Traditional Catholic doctrine flatly rejects the idea that false religions equally worship the true God. Pope Pius XI condemned the notion that “all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy” as inherently erroneous

By implication, “worship” that contradicts the one true faith is false worship. The Council of Florence (1441) explicitly taught that those outside the Catholic Church – whether pagans, Jews, Mohammedans, heretics or schismatics – “cannot become participants in eternal life” (Cantate Domino)

In Catholic thinking, the one true God of Israel and of the Church is known fully only through Christ; other religions either suppress truth or misunderstand it. The strict Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus doctrine of the pre‑Vatican Church (echoed in Florence and later reiterated by Pius IX) means that mere assent to an “anonymous” or “different” God is not salvific. In short, traditional voices warn that attempts to equate or merge the worship of Catholicism with that of non‑Christians deny revealed truth

Seamless Garment: Equating Abortion and Capital Punishment

Pre‑Vatican II teaching actually distinguished sharply between abortion (murder of an innocent) and lawful capital punishment. Abortion was condemned without ambiguity. The Church Fathers and Councils consistently treated abortion as homicide. For example, even the Didache (1st century) forbade procuring abortion. By contrast, Saint Thomas Aquinas taught that the state may legitimately execute criminals: “Wherefore it is lawful to kill the sinner who is harming others, according to the prescription of the law and the conditions required for the exercise of punishment.… Therefore they alone… can lawfully put evildoers to death”

This distinction reflects tradition: parents must care for children (Casti Connubii) and deliberately killing an unborn child was seen as especially heinous, whereas killing by due legal process was considered a sombre but permitted act for public justice. Even the Council of Florence’s pronouncement on salvation (quoted above) implies that grave sins condemn the soul unless mercy intervenes

Traditional sources regard abortion as intrinsic homicide and capital punishment (when justly applied) as a temporal penalty. They would argue that equating them (the “seamless garment”) ignores the seriousness of the innocent’s life; it was never the constant teaching to blur this distinction.

Appointing Women to High Offices in Church Governance

Prior to Vatican II, the Church’s ministries were understood as reserved for men. In Casti Connubii (1930), Pope Pius XI reiterated Scripture’s teaching on gender roles: “the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church”

This biblical principle undergirds Catholic tradition: only men receive Holy Orders and exercise jurisdiction. No pope or council before 1962 ever proposed ordaining women or granting them magisterial authority. On the contrary, St. Paul’s injunctions (e.g. “women should be silent in the churches… they are not allowed to speak” (1 Cor 14:34) and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man” (1 Tim 2:12)) were taken as normative. As late as Pius XI’s time, any thought of women as bishops, priests or proper “judges” in Church matters was foreign to theology and discipline. Thus traditionalist sources consistently treat men alone as covenant leaders and pastors; at most, women served in auxiliary roles (e.g. as nuns or educators) but did not hold governance offices.

Replacing Theological Certitude with “Listening” and Withholding Judgment

The pre‑Vatican Magisterium upheld firm belief in revealed truth, not vagueness. Vatican I (1870) condemned any denial of God’s knowability: “If anyone says that the one true God… cannot be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason… let him be anathema.”

Likewise, Pius X cited the Council’s anathemas to forbid denying the credibility of revelation: “If anyone says that divine revelation cannot be made credible by external signs… let him be anathema.”

These declarations imply that Catholics must hold truth with conviction, not suspend judgment indefinitely. In fact, Vatican I defined infallible papal teaching precisely to guarantee doctrinal certitude. Traditional sources (Popes, Fathers, Councils) provide clear moral teaching to guide the faithful; they did not endorse “waiting to see what people think” or denying any revealed doctrine for the sake of courtesy. In short, the modern call to merely “listen” and never judge was at odds with the older emphasis that Catholics must proclaim God’s truth boldly and judge ideas by it.

All said and done though, I do want to end with this.

I continue daily to pray for Mother Church and Pope Leo XIV and implore you to do the same. I beg you to persevere in hope with me.

In the spirit of my recent undertaking to be more charitable in my criticism I also ask that you please correct me if you feel I am being malicious or in error in my criticism.

Finally, let us proceed on the journey with extreme caution.

Extreme.

Christus vincit!

Christus regnat!

Christus imperat!