Rebutting Where Peter Is on Leo XIV’s Corpus Christi Homily

A theological response to claims that Leo’s “sharing” emphasis aligns with Catholic tradition.

In late July, Where Peter Is published an article by V. J. Tarantino responding to my June 22, 2025 Substack piece, “Bread Without Doctrine: Leo XIV’s Corpus Christi and the Vanishing Reality of the Eucharist.” Tarantino’s essay took issue with my analysis, arguing that Leo’s emphasis on the multiplication of the loaves was both liturgically appropriate and consistent with Catholic tradition. He cited the current lectionary, modern papal precedent, and theological reflections on grace and miracles in defense of the pope’s approach.

Because Tarantino’s article directly engages my work, and because it touches on core questions about how the Church presents the Eucharist in the post–Vatican II era, it deserves a clear and thorough rebuttal.

The Lectionary Difference Matters

Tarantino’s first move is to note that the Gospel for Corpus Christi in Year C is the multiplication of the loaves (Luke 9:11b–17). While true, this omits an important point of comparison. In the 1962 Roman Missal, the feast was framed by two explicitly sacrificial texts: St. Paul’s Last Supper account (1 Cor. 11:23–29) and the Bread of Life discourse from John 6:56–59 (“My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed”). The old rite gave the faithful both the apostolic institution narrative and Christ’s own words on His Real Presence.

In the postconciliar lectionary, the second reading from 1 Corinthians remains in Year C, but the Gospel from John 6 is replaced with Luke’s account of the loaves and fishes. This shifts the focus from Christ’s explicit Eucharistic teaching to a miracle more easily framed in terms of human action or social ethics.

Even so, Leo was not bound to center his homily on “sharing” simply because Luke’s account was read. The Institution narrative from 1 Corinthians was still proclaimed. A homilist who wished to preserve the doctrinal content of the feast could have linked the miracle to the sacrifice of the Cross, the Real Presence, and the necessity of worthy reception. Leo chose otherwise. That is the issue; not simply the selection of the Gospel text.

No Clear Affirmation of the Miracle

Contrary to Tarantino’s implication, Leo never unambiguously affirms the supernatural multiplication of the loaves. His statement that “Jesus multiplies the loaves and the fish by sharing what is available” is entirely compatible with the naturalistic explanation long favored by modernist exegetes: that no supernatural increase occurred, only that the crowd was inspired to share their provisions.

Worse, Leo actively undermines the supernatural by introducing the line, “The Lord’s actions are not some complicated magical rite.” This is not followed by an affirmation of divine creative power, but by a pivot to gratitude, prayer, and fellowship. The effect is to caricature belief in the miraculous as superstition and to replace it with a moralizing lesson — precisely the move used in modernist biblical commentaries to strip miracles of their divine character.

No Unambiguous Link Between the “Bread of Life” and the Eucharist

When Leo later says Christ is “the bread of eternal life,” he never explicitly connects this to the consecrated Host. In context, the phrase can be, and often is in modernist preaching, understood purely metaphorically: Jesus as a source of spiritual inspiration, rather than Jesus giving His Body and Blood in sacrifice.

The only explicit statement of the Real Presence is a single late reference to the Catechism’s definition (“true, real, and substantial presence”). But it appears disconnected from the miracle narrative and from the homily’s main theme. The Catechism citation functions more as a perfunctory nod than as the doctrinal heart of the sermon.

Modern Papal Precedent Is Not the Standard

Tarantino appeals to Benedict XVI’s occasional use of the “sharing” motif. But citing another postconciliar pope with similar tendencies does not address the doctrinal concern. Benedict himself, in various writings, displayed theological formulations that departed from traditional clarity, including his controversial treatment of the resurrection of the body in Eschatology: Death and Eternal Life, which he never formally retracted.

The question is not whether Leo stands in continuity with Benedict or any other Vatican II-era pope. The measure is the Catholic tradition as handed down in Scripture, the Fathers, the Council of Trent, and the preconciliar magisterium. On that standard, a homily that treats “sharing” as the dominant Eucharistic theme while leaving sacrifice, reparation, and worthy reception in the background fails to reflect the Church’s perennial teaching.

Misapplication of Garrigou-Lagrange

Tarantino cites Garrigou-Lagrange and Pascal on the superiority of sanctifying grace to sensible miracles, suggesting this justifies treating the multiplication of the loaves primarily as a lesson in charity. But Garrigou was not arguing that the miraculous dimension of Christ’s works should be minimized or reinterpreted as mere moral exhortation.

In Catholic theology, the multiplication of the loaves is a supernatural sign prefiguring the Eucharist: the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Bread from Heaven. To reduce it to an image of human solidarity strips it of its Christological and sacramental meaning, precisely the danger the Fathers and scholastics warned against.

The Eucharist and the Necessity of Conversion

One of my original criticisms, unaddressed in Tarantino’s reply, is that Leo’s Corpus Christi preaching omitted any call to repentance or warning about unworthy reception. There was no reference to mortal sin, no mention of sacramental confession, and no echo of Saint Paul’s warning in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29.

This omission is not accidental. It is entirely consistent with Leo’s open endorsement of Amoris Laetitia, Francis’s document that explicitly permits those living in public adultery, without repentance or amendment of life, to receive Holy Communion. The Council of Trent solemnly anathematizes this practice (Session XIII, canon 11), and Saint Paul warns that those who eat and drink unworthily bring judgment upon themselves. Even the modern Catechism, likewise, affirms that grave sin must be absolved before approaching the altar (CCC 1385).

By accepting and promoting the idea that those in a state of mortal sin may receive the Eucharist, Leo has already rejected the Church’s constant teaching on worthy reception. It is therefore no surprise that he would omit this theme on Corpus Christi: to proclaim it would have been to condemn not only his predecessor but also his own position.

The Core Issue Remains

Tarantino’s response rests on three main defenses: the assigned Gospel reading, precedent from other modern popes, and theological reflections on the primacy of grace over miracles. None of these resolves the core concern.

Leo XIV’s Corpus Christi homily reframed the miracle of the loaves as an act of human sharing, mocked the miraculous as a “magical rite,” left the “bread of life” language untethered from the Eucharist, and omitted the sacrificial and penitential dimensions entirely. While giving a late nod to the Real Presence, his framing and emphases fit the post–Vatican II style of Eucharistic preaching that retains Catholic externals but shifts the theological center of gravity away from the altar of sacrifice toward a universalist ethic of inclusion.

The result is a message that appears Catholic but leaves the faithful without the full truth of the feast: that the Eucharist is the Sacrifice of Calvary made present, offered for the remission of sins, and to be received only by those in a state of grace.