Reports from the Vatican continue to trickle information on the potential recovery of Pope Francis. More on that here. But his hospitalization has lead many to begin to turn their thoughts toward the next conclave. Those who stand united in their love for the Traditional Latin Mass and their disapproval for Francis often disagree on their assessments of Benedict XVI’s papacy, and so it is reasonable to ask: would it be a good thing if the next conclave elected a pope who held the same theological views as Benedict XVI? 

Would we be pleased with the prospect that such a pope would likely restore at least some Catholicism in the Vatican, or would we fear that he would perpetuate the crisis that has plagued the Church since Vatican II? In a group of one hundred Traditional Catholics, there may be dozens who believe it would obviously be terrible to have such a pope; and there may be dozens who believe it would obviously be a tremendous blessing to have such a pope.

One would think, though, that Traditional Catholics could generally agree upon at least four basic ideas about what an ideal pope would do:

• Fully restore the Traditional Latin Mass
• Put an end to the heresies, such as false ecumenism, which have poisoned the Church since Vatican II
• Condemn essentially every major initiative promoted by Francis, especially Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans and the Synod on Synodality
• Properly consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in accordance with the request of Our Lady of Fatima

Many of us would also want such a pope to canonize Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, correct the ambiguous passages of Vatican II, and excommunicate obstinate heretics, among other steps to address the crisis in the Church. However, for the sake of finding common ground among Traditional Catholics, we can consider the four initiatives outlined above.

So another pope like Benedict XVI would almost certainly take some steps that Traditional Catholics would applaud, but would he put an end to the heresies, such as false ecumenism, that have poisoned the Church since Vatican II?

Of the four items on the list above, which do we think another pope like Benedict XVI would implement? During his papacy, Benedict XVI’s Summorum Pontificum “freed the Latin Mass,” and so we could certainly hope for a similar defense and promotion of the Traditional Latin Mass from a pope cut from the same cloth. And although Benedict XVI remained relatively silent in the face of various blasphemous initiatives from Francis, it seems certain that he never would have permitted Amoris Laetitia, Fiducia Supplicans, or the Synod on Synodality.

So another pope like Benedict XVI would almost certainly take some steps that Traditional Catholics would applaud, but would he put an end to the heresies, such as false ecumenism, that have poisoned the Church since Vatican II? As discussed in a previous article, Benedict XVI made several statements during his pontificate insisting on the “irreversibility” of the ecumenical movement:

“Let us go forward with hope. In the footsteps of my Predecessors, especially Paul VI and John Paul II, I feel strongly the need to reassert the irreversible commitment taken by the Second Vatican Council and pursued in recent years, also thanks to the activity of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. The path to the full communion desired by Jesus for his disciples entails, with true docility to what the Spirit says to the Churches, courage, gentleness, firmness and hope, in order to reach our goal.” (25 April 2005, Benedict XVI, Address to Delegates of Other Churches and Ecclesial Communities of Other Religious Traditions)

“The commitment of the Catholic Church to the search for Christian unity is irreversible.” (2 Pt 1:2).” (16 June 2005, Benedict XVI, Address to Rev. Dr. Samuel Kobia and the Members of the Delegation from the World Council of Churches)

“Interreligious dialogue, as I pointed out with determination at the beginning of my Pontificate, is an irreversible venture for the Catholic Church, which ‘wants to continue building bridges of friendship with the followers of all religions in order to seek the true good of every person and of society as a whole.’” (1 December 2005, Benedict XVI, Address to Ambassador of Finland)

“I reaffirm the irreversibility of the ecumenical option and the inevitability of the interreligious encounter. I praise the most correct application of synodal collegiality and the regular ascertainment of ecclesial growth inspired by the new-found religious freedom.” (9 June 2007, Benedict XVI, Visit to Organization for the Oriental Churches)

“As regards the irreversibility of the ecumenical choice and the unbreakability of the interreligious choice, which I have often repeated, I want to emphasize on this occasion how they draw nourishment from the movement of ecclesial charity.” (21 June 2007, Benedict XVI, Address to Assembly of Organizations for Aid to the Eastern Churches)

“Together with the Orthodox Archbishop Chrysostomos II and the representatives of the Armenian, Lutheran and Anglican communities, we fraternally renewed our reciprocal and irreversible ecumenical commitment.” (9 June 2010, Benedict XVI, General Audience)

“Esteemed Brothers, dialogue among Christians is an imperative in our day and an irreversible option of the Church. In the meantime, as the Second Vatican Council recalled, prayer, conversion and the sanctification of life must be at the heart of every effort to promote unity (cf. Unitatis Redintegratio, n. 8).” (10 September 2010, Benedict XVI, Address to the Bishops of the Brazilian Episcopal Congress)

Clearly, Benedict XVI supported the ecumenical movement, which was the animating spirit of Vatican II and all of the Council’s subsequent reforms. Even beyond this support, though, the odd repetition of the concept of “irreversibility” prompts rational observers to ponder why he (and other members of the hierarchy) felt such a great need to assure the world that Rome would continue on the course of the ecumenical movement.

Clearly, Benedict XVI supported the ecumenical movement, which was the animating spirit of Vatican II and all of the Council’s subsequent reforms.

At least part of the reason surely relates to the way in which Traditional Catholics criticized the ecumenical movement (which we identify as “false ecumenism”) as acting in direct opposition to what the Church had taught prior to Vatican II. In other words, because Traditional Catholics condemned false ecumenism as a reversal of what the Church had always taught about Christian unity, it is logical to believe that Rome could eventually return to what it had once taught. Thus, when Benedict XVI and others have used the term “irreversible,” the implication is that Rome will never succumb to Traditional Catholic arguments against false ecumenism.

This gets to the heart of the question of whether another pope like Benedict XVI would be good for the Church. Are the Traditional Catholic arguments against false ecumenism important? To better evaluate the question, we can look to the January 6, 2004 letter to the world’s cardinals from the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), in which they stated the following about false ecumenism:

“How can we avoid placing ecumenism among the principal causes of this tragic state of affairs — that ecumenism initiated by Vatican II and promoted by Pope John Paul II? With the declared aim of establishing a new unity and invoking a desire to ‘focus on what unites us rather than on what divides us,’ ecumenism would rectify or reinterpret or simply cast aside those elements of Catholicism that appear to be cause of division. Thus disdaining the constant and unanimous teaching of Tradition which holds that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Catholic Church outside of which there is no salvation, ecumenism has destroyed, as it were, the most beautiful treasures of the Church, for instead of accepting that Unity founded on the plentitude of truth, it would establish a new unity upon a truth that espouses error.” (SSPX, From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, p. 6)

Perhaps because the SSPX bishops were writing to cardinals who ought to have understood theology, they did not feel the need to clarify that “a truth that espouses error” would be preposterous and illegitimate — truth and error are completely incompatible, and any purported mixture of truth and error is simply error. Thus, a religion built on false ecumenism is built entirely on error. They continued as follows:

“This same ecumenism was the primary motivation behind a liturgical reform that has proved disastrous for the faith and the religious practice of the faithful. It has rewritten the Bible, distorting divinely inspired text in order to present a watered-down version of it that no longer proclaims the Catholic faith. It now seeks to found a new Church, described in detail by Cardinal Kasper in a recent conference. We can never be in communion with the promoters of an ecumenism that leads to the dissolution of the Catholic Church, that is, Christ in His Mystical Body, and that destroys the unity of the faith, the true foundation of such communion.” (From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, p. 6)

With these words, the SSPX bishops emphasized ideas that impact all of the faithful directly and noticeably. Indeed, long before we had heard of Jorge Bergoglio, we had witnessed the disastrous liturgical reforms and watering down of Catholic teaching to accommodate non-Catholics. As they stated, false ecumenism was the primary motivation behind such changes. And, if we look at the conference by Cardinal Kasper that the bishops mentioned, we see the following statement about the irreversibility of the process:

“This is an irreversible process, and in a world that becomes more and more one world there is no realistic alternative to ecumenism.” (From Ecumenism to Silent Apostasy, p. 46)

Any pope who would continue the disastrous commitment to false ecumenism would offend God, lead souls to Hell, further destroy the Church, and support the work of Catholicism’s enemies.

Why, we must ask, does the notion of the world becoming “more and more one world,” mean that the Catholic Church can never turn back from the path of watering down immutable Catholic Truth to accommodate non-Catholics? Interestingly, St. Pius X appears to have provided the best answer in his 1910 apostolic mandate to the French bishops about the Sillon movement, Notre Charge Apostolique:

“We fear that worse is to come: the end result of this developing promiscuousness, the beneficiary of this cosmopolitan social action, can only be a Democracy which will be neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish. It will be a religion (for Sillonism, so the leaders have said, is a religion) more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men to become brothers and comrades at last in the ‘Kingdom of God’. – 'We do not work for the Church, we work for mankind.’ And now, overwhelmed with the deepest sadness, We ask Ourselves, Venerable Brethren, what has become of the Catholicism of the Sillon? Alas! this organization which formerly afforded such promising expectations, this limpid and impetuous stream, has been harnessed in its course by the modern enemies of the Church, and is now no more than a miserable affluent of the great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world (if such a Church could overcome) the reign of legalized cunning and force, and the oppression of the weak, and of all those who toil and suffer.”

St. Pius X saw that the Church’s enemies would harness the Sillon movement to advance their dreams of a One-World Church. As we can see from the last sentence, this One-World Church resembles Francis’s Synodal Church in key respects: “. . . the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, neither discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions . . .” Instead of continuing to use the Sillon movement for these purposes, the Church’s enemies have used the “irreversible” ecumenical movement to build the Synodal Church.

Returning to the earlier question, are the Traditional Catholic arguments against false ecumenism important? If so, would another pope who insisted on the irreversibility of the ecumenical movement be good for the Church? It seems that God has permitted the answer to become extraordinarily clear by now: any pope who would continue the disastrous commitment to false ecumenism would offend God, lead souls to Hell, further destroy the Church, and support the work of Catholicism’s enemies. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

Latest from RTV — UKRAINE WAR 3 YEARS LATER: What They Didn’t Want You to Know!