From Paul VI to Leo XIV: The Revolution Intensifies to Outright Apostasy

The SSPX and Rome: Fifty Years of Conciliar Gaslighting (Part 2)

In his recent interview, Fr. Pagliarani remarked on the current “new pontificate” (Leo XIV’s) and noted that “the major orientations already taking shape… only confirm an explicit determination to preserve the line of Pope Francis as an irreversible trajectory for the entire Church.” In other words, Leo XIV is doubling down on Francis’s revolution, which itself was the fruit of Paul VI’s revolution. Francis had pushed modernism to new heights (or depths), and Leo XIV, far from correcting course, is continuing the plunge.

Under Francis (2013–2023), the Vatican exhibited an openly progressive, anti-Traditional agenda: undermining moral teachings (e.g. winking at cohabitation and adultery), persecuting the Latin Mass communities (through Traditionis Custodes in 2021), and promoting religious indifferentism (Francis’s infamous 2019 Abu Dhabi declaration claimed that God wills the diversity of religions). Many Catholics naively hoped that a new Pope might reverse some of these outrages; but Leo XIV has instead made clear that Francis’s course is “irreversible.”

What does this mean practically? It means that Leo XIV’s “Catholicism” is even more modernist and unrecognizable than Paul VI’s was. Consider these glaring “developments” in doctrine and practice which even Paul VI, for all his errors, would have hesitated to do, but which today’s Vatican proudly endorses:

1. Blessings for homosexual couples and Communion for public adulterers

During Francis’s reign, and now under Leo XIV, the Church has effectively sanctioned practices that directly contradict Scripture and 2,000 years of moral teaching. Thanks to Amoris Laetitia and subsequent guidelines, divorced persons living in adulterous “remarriage” can be admitted to Holy Communion; a tacit overthrow of the dogma that one in mortal sin must not receive the Eucharist.

Even worse, the Vatican’s doctrinal office, now led by Cardinal Fernández, recently published a document permitting priests to give certain “blessings” to homosexual couples (so long as it’s “pastoral” and not officially equating to matrimony). This was unthinkable in Paul VI’s time; Montini at least upheld Catholic moral teaching on paper. Yet Francis and Leo XIV find ways to “pastorally” endorse what God’s law calls abomination.

Fr. Pagliarani rightly observed that through the alchemy of “synodality,” Francis was able to impose such “catastrophic decisions” on the whole Church, like “authorizing Holy Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, or the blessing of same-sex couples.” This is open heresy in practice; a direct assault on the sacrament of Marriage and the Eucharist. It reveals a “Catholicism” so warped that one wonders if these prelates believe in sin at all. Leo XIV has made no move to reverse these profanations; on the contrary, his spokesman (Card. Fernández) insists that the Church must find “new answers” via synods, not revert to traditional doctrine . We are truly witnessing the Church of Laodicea; neither hot nor cold, wallowing in lukewarm capitulation to the world’s sins.

2. Doctrinal “Minimalism” and the Abolition of Tradition

One of the hallmarks of this “Leo XIV” era is a pseudo-theology that treats all the rich doctrine and liturgy of Tradition as disposable baggage. Cardinal Fernández, speaking for Leo XIV, delivered a talk (at the consistory) urging the Church to “return to Pope Francis’s fundamental intuition in Evangelii Gaudium,” which means reducing the Gospel to a few basic ideas (“the kerygma”) for an emotional encounter, and setting aside everything else (even if precious). In practice, “all that is Tradition is considered accessory and secondary” in this new evangelization method.

Fr. Pagliarani pinpointed the result: “It is this method that has produced the doctrinal emptiness characteristic of Pope Francis’s pontificate.” Indeed, Francis’s decade was marked by a dearth of clear teaching. It was all vapid slogans and “accompaniment” without truth. Now Leo XIV apparently approves this approach as well. They literally want a faith without doctrine; just a fuzzy “encounter” experience. And any remaining doctrine or moral norms can be up for grabs in the Synodal “walk together,” rather than being drawn from perennial Tradition.

This is the perfection of modernism: a constantly evolving faith, unmoored from the past. Paul VI started this by introducing ambiguity in the Council texts and the New Mass (which drastically de-emphasized Catholic doctrines like sacrifice, Real Presence, etc.). But Montini at least issued a Credo of the People of God in 1968 reaffirming basic dogmas, and he did condemn artificial contraception.

In contrast, Leo XIV’s Vatican seems to glory in undermining dogmas; e.g., the Pluralism of religions blasphemy from Abu Dhabi. Fr. Pagliarani highlighted that event: in 2019, Francis signed a document with an Imam stating that God wills the diversity of religions. This statement is “simply inconceivable” for a Catholic. It implies God willed false religions and idolatry. Pagliarani rightly said “a Catholic should prefer martyrdom rather than accept such an affirmation,” because it’s a direct sin against the First Commandment and a negation of the Creed’s first article.

Yet Francis did it, and notably, Leo XIV has never repudiated this heresy. In fact, just like Paul VI dodged when Lefebvre tried to discuss Dignitatis Humanae (on religious liberty), today’s Vatican refuses to correct the Abu Dhabi error. They incorporate it into their ecumenical program. So Leo XIV’s “church” bases its unity not on shared true faith, but on a lowest-common-denominator notion that all religions are willed by God so let’s just get along. This is far more heretical than anything officially taught under Paul VI, who, for all his faults, would not say God wills many religions. We have truly entered the realm of a new religion.

3. Persecution of the Traditional Latin Mass and those attached to it

Cardinal Arthur Roche, Chief Persecutor of the Latin Mass. Trad Inc. assured us Leo would get rid of him. Personnel is policy, they said. Just wait and see! Yet Roche remains! Trad Inc. stands convicted as they continue to knowingly mislead the faithful.

If Paul VI was harsh to old-rite adherents, Leo XIV is positively ruthless. Under Leo’s predecessor (Francis), all the gains of Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum were erased. The ancient Mass was again treated as a suspicious threat that must be marginalized or stamped out. Francis’s Traditionis Custodes (2021) and Cardinal Roche’s recent statements (endorsed by Leo XIV) openly declare that the Novus Ordo is the sole unique expression of the Roman Rite and that the Tridentine Mass is at best an aging concession soon to die off . Leo XIV appears to fully concur with Roche’s logic: since the post-Vatican II ecclesiology is new, it can only have a new liturgy to express it; the old liturgy doesn’t fit the new church, so it must be eliminated.

Fr. Pagliarani summed up Roche’s position: the Cardinal insists that having two forms of worship causes division; the Church must “have only one rite” aligned with the new understanding of Tradition. This is chilling but honest. The conciliar church acknowledges that the Tridentine Mass is incompatible with its “evolving tradition” (modernist code for endless change). As Pagliarani points out, Roche’s principle (one faith, one ecclesiology, therefore one rite) is actually correct, but he applies it wrongly by identifying the new heterodox rite as the unique “living expression” and branding the ancient rite as “obsolete.” In fact, only the traditional liturgy adequately expresses the true immutable Catholic faith, whereas the Novus Ordo was designed (by committees including Protestant observers) to express a new ecumenical theology.

Thus the Vatican’s war on the old Mass has only intensified: what Paul VI began by imposing the Novus Ordo in 1969 and saying old priests should “willingly” obey, Francis/Leo XIV have turned into outright prohibition of the old rite wherever they can enforce it. Whole religious orders (like the FFI) have been crushed for using the traditional Mass; diocesan Catholics attached to it are being driven out into the cold unless they consent to the Novus Ordo. Even the Ecclesia Dei communities that tried to “accept the Council” in exchange for the Latin Mass are now being told to conform or else.

This proves the conciliar revolutionaries never intended peaceful co-existence. They allowed an older Mass only temporarily to lure folks away from the SSPX or to keep them quiet, but their endgame was always total replacement. And now under Leo XIV they feel strong enough to say it openly: “the only way forward is one single lex orandi, the Paul VI Mass, everything else is a threat to unity.” Paul VI himself said almost exactly that to Lefebvre in 1976 (refusing pluralism), but he didn’t have the iron fist to enforce it universally.

Today’s Rome is trying to enforce it with a vengeance. Even Benedict XVI’s mild restoration has been overturned. Truly, Leo XIV’s church hates Tradition even more fiercely than Montini’s did, if that’s possible. Pagliarani notes that this opposition from the Holy See to the old Mass is “more irrevocable than ever” now. They are in essence irrationally determined to eradicate the “Mass of all time.” Why? Because the Traditional Mass is a living condemnation of their new theology and a beacon attracting souls (especially youth), something even Traditionis Custodes admitted was “problematic” (young people discovering the old Mass start questioning Vatican II).

The revolution cannot allow that. So once again, anything is tolerated; clown masses, rock concerts in church, empty pews; except the one thing that actually produces faith and reverence. If that doesn’t convince someone that the post-Conciliar hierarchy is dominated by an anti-Catholic spirit, what will?

4. Silencing of any remaining “conservatives”

Under Leo XIV, as under Francis, even mild conservative bishops and cardinals are mostly muted by fear. Those who know things are wrong (like the Dubia Cardinals under Francis, or a handful of others) either get removed or stay quiet to “preserve unity.” Fr. Pagliarani poignantly described how many prelates who love the Latin Mass or see the errors nonetheless keep “a constrained silence.” They whisper privately but won’t publicly resist, lest Rome punish them and strip whatever little privilege they have. “The fear of breaking a fragile stability by behavior deemed ‘disturbing’ reduces many pastors to silence… souls are no longer openly enlightened and are deprived of the bread of doctrine… Over time this leads to an unconscious acceptance of the various reforms”, the SSPX statement observes.

This was already happening in Paul VI’s day (many bishops disliked innovations but said nothing); today it’s even more pronounced, because now the Vatican shows zero tolerance for dissent from the right. A German bishop publicly blessing gay couples faces no real censure, but if a bishop even questions the justice of Traditionis Custodes, he might find himself quickly retired or investigated. The “conservative” prelates basically have decided to go along to keep their dioceses or positions. This means that within official Church structures, effective resistance to modernism is almost nil.

Humanly speaking, only independent traditional groups like the SSPX or sedevacantists can speak truth freely now. Rome has everyone else under its thumb to some degree. So Leo XIV’s regime, by dint of Francis’s purges and appointments, is arguably more monolithically modernist than Paul VI’s administration ever was. In Montini’s time there were still some strongly orthodox bishops (e.g. Archbishop Sigitas in Italy, or Cardinal Ottaviani and Bacci who protested the New Mass), but today most have died or been replaced with a generation formed entirely in the post-Vatican II errors. Thus Leo XIV’s “Catholicism,” as expressed by the majority of his hierarchy, is an ersatz Catholicism barely distinguishable from Anglicanism or liberal Protestantism. They have women “lectors,” lay people distributing communion, altar girls, etc., in almost every parish; their theology is horizontal and social; many openly doubt or deny miracles, hell, the need for conversion. It’s a Church of man.

Given these realities, it is no exaggeration to say that Pope Leo XIV is presiding over the culmination of the Conciliar Revolution. What began in the 1960s as a modernist infiltration has become by the 2020s a full-blown apostasy from within. As Fr. Pagliarani noted, this new pontificate has shown “a determination to preserve Francis’s line as an irreversible trajectory”, cementing Vatican II’s course. Leo XIV has not (so far) issued any grand documents himself; he works through men like Cardinal Fernández and Cardinal Roche. But their statements reflect his will.

For example, in the recent consistory, Card. Fernández extolled Francis’s program of a stripped-down “kerygmatic” Gospel plus synodal adaptation, effectively endorsing ongoing doctrinal dilution and moral laxity in the name of “encounter.” Fernández even had the nerve to call this the “breath of the Spirit!” Cardinal Zen (a prelate who suffered under Communism) rightly labeled this claim “manipulative” and “blasphemous”, attributing the revolution to the Holy Ghost. But such is the hubris of the new hierarchy. They dare to blame the Spirit for their own rebellion against God’s law.

Meanwhile, Leo XIV’s man in charge of doctrine, Víctor Fernández, is himself a figure of scandal and incompetence. This DDF head, whom the SSPX is now expected to “dialogue” with, is widely known not for sound theology, but for authoring quasi-pornographic literature and pushing heterodox ideas. It is beyond insulting that Leo XIV would send such a character to lecture the SSPX about fidelity or Church norms. Fernandez’s sordid record speaks for itself: he wrote a 1995 book titled “Heal Me with Your Mouth: The Art of Kissing”, basically a vulgar erotic pamphlet he defended as “catechesis for teens” (to general disgust). Even worse, in 1998 he published another book on “spirituality and sensuality” that included an imaginary sexual encounter between a teenage girl and Jesus Christ, describing how she “kisses and caresses His body from head to toe” with the Blessed Virgin looking on approvingly!

This depraved and blasphemous scenario is so pornographic that Fernández later pulled the book from circulation and now sheepishly says “I certainly would not write that now.” Yet this is the man chosen as prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith; essentially, the Vatican’s chief theologian and guardian of purity of doctrine. Can one imagine St. Pius X’s reaction? (St. Pius X, who ordered modernist writings to be burned, would likely throw Fernández’s works into the fire with his own hands.)

Additionally, under Fernández’s short tenure, the DDF has already formally sanctioned “pastoral blessings” for couples living in objective sin (both homosexual and heterosexual). So the new DDF head not only wrote titillating “mystical” smut in his youth, but now explicitly green-lights practices contrary to Catholic morality. Truly a “theologically illiterate” joke of a prefect! As one commentator quipped, “Rome’s chief doctrinal guardian wrote pornographic, blasphemous books – you can’t make this stuff up” .

It is no wonder, then, that traditional Catholics view the Leo XIV Vatican as a rogue regime; an entity that may hold formal power but has largely lost legitimacy by its public heresies and scandals. The contrast with Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX could not be starker. On one side, you have Catholic bishops and priests faithfully teaching what the Church always taught, offering the same Mass, fostering vocations, and nourishing souls; on the other, you have apostate prelates preaching eco-activism, endorsing immoral unions, undermining sacraments, and even producing lewd literature under the banner of the papacy.

And yet Rome has the temerity to act as if the SSPX is the problem! Cardinal Fernández’s letter to Pagliarani (the one refusing any practical solution) even threatened “new sanctions,” meaning excommunications or declarations of schism, if the Society goes ahead with consecrations. How absurd! This conciliar cabal, which blesses sodomy and praises false religions, wants to condemn a few bishops for keeping Catholic Tradition alive?

If they do issue such “sanctions,” they will carry zero weight. As Pagliarani calmly noted, “in such circumstances, any canonical penalties would have no real effect” . Indeed. How can excommunications from manifest heretics harm someone who is in communion with the 2,000-year Church? They are meaningless, null and void. The Society, if “condemned” again, will simply wear it as a badge of honor, “suffering for the Church,” as they say, until one day a truly Catholic pope removes the censure (just as Benedict XVI in 2009 lifted the unjust excommunications of 1988). In the end, we know Catholic truth will prevail; the modernists will either convert or die off. Our Lord promised the gates of hell would not prevail, but he never promised they wouldn’t almost overrun the city, as they have today.

To be continued in Part 3 on Monday!

---

If you value independent Catholic analysis and want to help keep this work going, you can make a contribution or subscribe below. Every donation and subscription directly supports the writing, research, and production of Hiraeth in Exile.

Thank you for helping preserve independent Catholic journalism rooted in truth and tradition.