Leo XIV Abandons Papal Supremacy: Peter is No Longer “The Rock”

What Was Once Dogma Is Now a Negotiating Point

Rome didn’t wait for Leo XIV to start surrendering the papacy. That process was already in motion. In 2024, the Vatican released The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues and in the Responses to the Encyclical Ut Unum Sint; a sprawling document that, far from defending the papacy, proposes its slow reinvention as a symbolic role acceptable to Protestants, Orthodox, and anyone else unwilling to confess the primacy of jurisdiction taught by Christ and defined by the First Vatican Council.

Now, with Leo XIV’s May 18, 2025 homily and the swift, self-satisfied reaction from the Anglican world, that quiet theological white paper has found its visible face. The trajectory is no longer speculative. It’s active, embodied, and declared from the Chair of Peter, or what’s left of it..

The Document That Opened the Door

The Bishop of Rome was presented as a neutral synthesis of ecumenical discussions, but its purpose was anything but neutral. The preface openly states that the goal is to gather practical proposals for a new way to exercise the papacy “recognized by all concerned;” not defined by divine constitution, not ruled by dogma, but negotiated by committee. The document repeatedly questions whether the Vatican I definitions still apply in the modern world, casting doubt on the de iure divino character of the Roman Pontiff’s universal jurisdiction and reducing it to one ecclesiological “model” among others.

It claims to honor the “first millennium” as the template, but that’s a smokescreen. The Church of the first millennium never doubted that Rome’s primacy was more than ceremonial. The Fathers appealed to Rome to settle doctrinal disputes because she taught with authority, not because she held a special chair at the banquet of pluralism. This 2024 text doesn’t resurrect ancient faith, but rather reanimates modern confusion.

Even more damning, the document treats Vatican I as a historical artifact in need of “hermeneutical reinterpretation,” not a solemn, infallible definition to be believed with divine and Catholic faith. The council that proclaimed Pastor aeternus now finds itself politely shelved for fear of offending the sensibilities of the Anglicans and the Orthodox.

But this capitulation didn’t begin with Leo. It goes back at least to Ratzinger.

Ratzinger Preemptively Undermines Vatican I

The groundwork was laid decades earlier. Joseph Ratzinger, first as theologian, then as Cardinal, and even as pope, repeatedly proposed that Eastern Orthodoxy could be reconciled with Rome without accepting Vatican I in the form it was defined. That was the premise. And it was explicit.

In Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Ratzinger wrote:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than was formulated and lived in the first millennium.”

He doubled down on this in Principles of Catholic Theology:

“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than was formulated and lived in the first millennium. When the Patriarch Athenagoras, on July 25, 1967, on the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar, designated him as the successor of St. Peter, as the most esteemed among us, as one who also presides in charity, this great Church leader was expressing the essential content of the doctrine of primacy as it was known in the first millennium. Rome need not ask for more.”

(Principles of Catholic Theology, pp. 198–199)

He goes even further:

“Reunion could take place in this context if, on the one hand, the East would cease to oppose as heretical the developments that took place in the West in the second millennium and would accept the Catholic Church as legitimate and orthodox in the form she had acquired in the course of that development, while, on the other hand, the West would recognize the Church of the East as orthodox and legitimate in the form she has always had.”

(Principles, pp. 199–200)

In other words, Vatican I is binding for the West, but not for the East. The universal authority of the pope is infallibly defined dogma, unless it’s ecumenically inconvenient. This was the very premise of postconciliar diplomacy. And now, under Leo XIV, it is finally becoming praxis.

Leo’s Homily: The Blueprint Becomes Flesh

On May 18, in his first homily as bishop of Rome, Leo XIV stood before the world and delivered a sermon devoid of any reference to authority, infallibility, or papal jurisdiction. Instead, he described his role as “a brother,” not a sovereign. His task, he said, is to “love more,” not to teach or rule. The pope is no longer Pastor pastorum. He’s just another pilgrim, albeit a visible one, on a shared journey of emotional solidarity.

Every dogmatic reality once tied to Peter is repackaged as poetic metaphor. The “rock” is now merely a symbol of vulnerability and love. The “keys” are nowhere to be found. And the apostolic mandate to confirm the brethren is replaced with vague calls for fraternity and dialogue.

Even the Gospel exegesis is inverted. Leo latches onto the wordplay between agapáō and phileō to turn Peter’s commission into an exercise in wounded friendship. There is no urgency to preach, no charge to teach all nations, no affirmation of divine mandate: only the suggestion that love means never asserting anything with clarity.

Rome has spoken. And it sounds like Lambeth Palace.

The Rock Is No Longer Peter

Among the most disturbing elements of the 2024 Vatican document is its willingness to question whether Peter is even the rock of Matthew 16. The text notes that some ecumenical dialogues “highlight the ambiguity of the term ‘rock,’ suggesting it may refer to Peter’s faith or to Christ Himself, rather than to Peter as a person.” This is not presented as an error to be corrected, but as a view to be “respected.” It is offered without correction, without defense of the traditional teaching, and without the slightest concern for the weight of centuries of Catholic interpretation.

This directly contradicts the teaching of every pope who has defended the authority of Peter. The Fathers, the Councils, and the Magisterium have all consistently interpreted the “rock” as Peter himself—Tu es Petrus—because the Church is built upon his office. That understanding is essential to the dogma of the papacy. Remove Peter from the foundation and the entire structure collapses.

And now, under Leo XIV, that collapse is underway.

In his May 18 homily, Leo subtly reinforced this reinterpretation. When referencing the “rock,” he pointed not to Peter but to Jesus. He spoke of the rock as a metaphor for Christ’s love, not for Peter’s authority. This was not a slip. It was consistent with the theological trajectory of the Vatican document. Peter is no longer the visible foundation of the Church. The “rock” is spiritualized, abstracted, and stripped of any institutional meaning.

What remains is a Church without a foundation. What was once the cornerstone of Catholic apologetics is now treated as ambiguous poetry. And what Christ defined with clarity is now rewritten in the name of ecumenical inclusivity.

The words of Christ—Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam—have not changed. But Rome no longer dares to say what they mean.

Anglican Ink and The Stream Read the Signs Correctly

The Anglicans wasted no time reading the room. Just one day after Leo’s homily, Anglican Ink published a piece titled “Pope Leo XIV Drops Papal Supremacy, Urging Full Communion with All Christians.” Their headline may be provocative, but it’s not inaccurate.

They understood exactly what was happening. The rock of Peter is being reshaped into ecumenical clay. The ministry once resisted by Protestants for being too absolute is now being reoffered in a form they can accept, not because they’ve changed, but because Rome has.

The article practically gloats. It cites Leo’s call for peace and unity as confirmation that the papacy will henceforth operate not by divine right, but by mutual consent. The Bishop of Rome has been demoted from Vicar of Christ to chaplain of the global village.

Even The Stream could not help noticing what was happening. In a May 20 piece, journalist Jules Gomes highlighted Leo’s push for “full communion” with all Christians, without requiring them to accept Catholic dogma. Gomes observes that Leo “did not utter a single word about ‘conversion’” and refrained from proclaiming the Catholic Church as the one true Church. Instead, he calls on all Christians to walk together, without any reference to repentance, reconciliation, or submission to the true faith.

Gomes writes that the homily “stunned observers” and quotes theologians describing Leo’s papacy as an ecumenical concession. The Pope “seemed to indicate that the [Eastern] Orthodox churches would not be required to accept Vatican I”—echoing, knowingly or not, the same capitulation Ratzinger articulated years ago.

Even critics from outside traditionalist circles are beginning to realize: this is not business as usual. This is a new model of papacy that asks nothing, asserts nothing, and rules nothing: except the requirement to remain silent in the name of dialogue.

From Apostolic to Advisory

What’s emerging is not a Church built on Peter but a confederation built on perpetual consultation. The Roman Pontiff is recast as a facilitator, a listener, a spiritual moderator of international dialogues. He is not to confirm the brethren in the faith but to learn from them, adapt to them, and avoid any offense that might rupture ecumenical good feelings.

But the papacy is not a feeling. It is a divine institution. Christ established Peter as the visible head of the Church with real power: the power to bind and loose, to teach infallibly, to govern the faithful. Vatican I did not invent these truths. It defined them. And what Leo now proposes, what the Vatican document endorses, is their nullification.

The danger is not merely theological drift. It is doctrinal suicide.

If This Is the Papacy, Why Must Anyone Submit?

The most staggering implication of Leo XIV’s vision is not just what it concedes to Protestants and Orthodox. It is what it demands of no one. If papal supremacy is no longer defined as Vatican I taught—if the pope is no longer said to possess “true and proper jurisdiction” over all the faithful, over each pastor and each flock, to be obeyed not merely by reverence but by divine obligation, then submission to the pope becomes symbolic rather than theological.

Rome no longer claims that the Orthodox must accept Vatican I. Rome no longer requires Protestants to renounce their errors or to enter the one visible Church to be in communion with the successor of Peter. Rome no longer expects anyone outside her walls to confess the faith in its fullness. She simply asks for dialogue and goodwill.

If that is the new model, why should traditional Catholics be held to something more?

If the papacy is now a ministry of listening rather than judging, of presiding in courtesy rather than authority, then the duty of obedience dissolves. No bishop is bound in conscience to submit to a papacy that does not claim binding jurisdiction. No layman is obliged to assent to teachings that are no longer presented as definitive or divinely safeguarded.

The new model preserves the appearance of papal authority while divesting it of content. It leaves in place the institutional mechanisms of ultramontanism, but only to suppress traditional Catholics. The Orthodox are invited to remain Orthodox. Protestants may keep their ecclesial structures. But a Catholic priest who offers the old rite or questions synodality finds himself censured by the very pope who will not correct heresy in others.

If the papacy is no longer what Vatican I defined, then the moral and theological obligation to submit to it no longer exists. Either Leo XIV is wrong, or obedience to him is no longer required.

No one can have it both ways.

The Vindication of the Warning

For decades, those who insisted that Vatican II and its aftermath would dissolve the papacy have been dismissed as alarmist. But now the proof is public. A pope who denies his own office by reinterpreting it as a soft symbol of synodal tenderness. A Vatican document that treats infallibility as a cultural misunderstanding. A world of ecumenical spectators clapping as the one institution that once stood firm retreats into the crowd.

This is abdication.

The Church cannot be governed by nostalgia for misunderstood traditions of the “first millennium,” especially when those traditions are filtered through Protestant and Eastern wishlists. Nor can it build unity by compromising the very authority that guarantees unity. A Church that no longer believes in the papacy cannot be Catholic.

Conclusion: The Chair Has Been Lowered

The papacy was once a throne of truth, not because of the man who sat on it, but because of the promises of Christ. What we now see is not the exercise of that authority but its emptying. The Chair of Peter has not been vacated. It has been lowered: ritually, rhetorically, and theologically; to the level of all others, lest anyone feel left out.

But in doing so, it ceases to be the Chair of Peter at all.

Rome is no longer guarding the deposit. It is rewriting it. Not to preserve unity, but to purchase relevance. The bark of Peter is not steering through modernity. It is drifting with the current, waving a white flag in the name of dialogue.

The only thing missing is a new encyclical: Humilitatis Simulacrum: On the Art of Pretending Authority While Abdicating It Entirely.

Until then, faithful Catholics will have to decide: follow the Christ who gave Peter the keys, or follow the men who threw them into the Tiber.