The Crisis of Clarity: Doctrine, Liturgy, and the Perils of Continuity

An Interview that Revealed a Pontificate
Pope Leo XIV’s first extensive interview with Crux in September 2025 has already become a test case for his pontificate. For some, it revealed a man of subtle diplomacy, gently re-anchoring the Church after years of turbulence. For others, it confirmed the most troubling tendencies of the post-conciliar era: ambiguity in place of certainty, process in place of proclamation, attitudes in place of revelation.

The central phrase has been quoted endlessly: “We have to change attitudes before we even think about changing what the Church says about any given question.”¹ The line appears innocuous, even pastoral. Yet upon examination it contains two grave errors. First, it implies that doctrine can change. Second, it grounds such change not in divine revelation but in the mutable “attitudes” of the people.

When added to Leo’s description of doctrinal change as “highly unlikely” in the “near future,” the result is a rhetorical style that treats the immovable as provisional. The effect is pastoral confusion, theological instability, and liturgical paralysis.

Ambiguity as a Method
One of the hallmarks of modernism, as St Pius X observed in Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), is the deliberate use of ambiguous language. Modernists “employ a manner of speaking which conceals their designs” and utter themselves “in terms that at first sight would seem in perfect agreement with Catholic doctrine, but after a little thought are found to be wholly opposed.”²

This is not merely rhetorical clumsiness. Ambiguity is deployed as a tactic: it allows progressive innovations to be advanced without outright contradiction of the tradition. It provides comfort to the faithful by suggesting continuity while smuggling in discontinuity.

Leo’s choice of language in the Crux interview reflects this modernist method. To say doctrine is “highly unlikely” to change is to introduce probability where certainty is required. To tie doctrine to “attitudes” is to import sociology into theology.

Doctrine Held Hostage to Attitudes
The claim that attitudes must change before doctrine can change echoes directly the synodal documents of recent years. The Synod on Synodality’s Final Report (2023) stated: “The consensus of the faithful constitutes a sure criterion for determining whether a particular doctrine or practice belongs to the apostolic faith.”³

This is a dangerous inversion. The sensus fidelium, properly understood, is not the shifting consensus of a generation but the constant faith of the Church across centuries. Cardinal Newman, in On Consulting the Faithful in Matters of Doctrine (1859), distinguished between the faithful as witnesses of the deposit of faith and the laity as inventors of doctrine. The sensus fidelium is authoritative only because it reflects what has always been believed everywhere and by all — not because it reflects what people currently feel.

Leo XIII taught in Sapientiae Christianae (1890): “To determine which are the doctrines divinely revealed belongs to the teaching Church, to whom God has entrusted the safekeeping and interpretation of His utterances.”⁴ Authority rests with the Magisterium, not with public attitudes.

Pius X condemned as heretical in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) proposition 6: “The Church learning and the Church teaching collaborate in such a way in defining truths that it only remains for the Church teaching to sanction the opinions of the Church learning.”⁵ This is precisely the model suggested by Leo’s words — doctrine conditional upon consensus.

The Language of Probability and the Nature of Dogma
When asked about marriage and sexuality, Leo replied: “I think it highly unlikely, certainly in the near future, that the Church’s doctrine will change.”⁶

This phrasing reflects not certainty but hesitation. Yet Catholic doctrine, once defined, is irreformable. Vatican I taught in Dei Filius (1870): “That meaning of the sacred dogmas is ever to be maintained which has once been declared by Holy Mother Church, and there must never be a recession from that meaning under the pretext or in the name of a deeper understanding.”⁷

Dogma may develop in understanding, as St Vincent of Lérins explained, but only in the sense that “ut annis consolidetur, dilatetur tempore, sublimetur aetate” — it is strengthened with years, expanded with time, elevated with age.⁸ Development is growth in continuity, not alteration in substance.

To say that a doctrine is “highly unlikely” to change suggests that it might change under different conditions. But the indissolubility of marriage, the male-only priesthood, the immorality of homosexual acts — these are not matters of likelihood. They are matters of certainty.

The Liturgy in Limbo
The fate of the Traditional Latin Mass is the most immediate concern of faithful Catholics. Francis’ Traditionis Custodes (2021) sought to restrict it severely, portraying it as a threat to unity. Bishops were pressured to suppress it; families were displaced from parishes; priests were silenced.

In the Crux interview, Leo suggested that the way forward was to “sit down and talk” under synodality.⁹ To some, this sounded like openness. In reality, it is paralysis.

The sacred liturgy is not the property of committees. It is not negotiable policy. It is the worship of the Church, sanctified by the saints, codified by the Council of Trent, and guaranteed by immemorial custom. Benedict XVI, in Summorum Pontificum (2007), declared: “It is, therefore, permissible to celebrate the Sacrifice of the Mass following the typical edition of the Roman Missal promulgated by Blessed John XXIII in 1962 and never abrogated.”¹⁰

By reducing the liturgy to synodal discussion, Leo repeats the very method by which it was attacked. Under Francis, synodal processes were manipulated, evidence from bishops was suppressed, and predetermined outcomes were produced. To place the liturgy once again into “discussion” is to leave it vulnerable to the same abuse.

Only juridical clarity — the rescinding of Traditionis Custodes and the restoration of full liberty for the TLM — can secure its rightful place. Anything less is illusion.

Continuity Without Correction
Some Catholic observers describe Leo’s pontificate as “more continuity than change.”¹¹ His curial appointments so far suggest caution rather than courage. Non-ordained leadership roles have expanded. The structures Francis created remain in place.

Critics warn that Leo is practicing “practical liberalism”: tolerating the old rite in isolated pockets, softening rhetoric on doctrine, but leaving the structures of suppression intact. This approach provides symbolic comfort without substantial change.

Continuity without correction is the most dangerous path. It preserves the Franciscan revolution beneath the veneer of stability. It teaches Catholics to accept drift as normal and to treat coded reassurances as doctrinal certainty.

Unity Without Truth
Leo repeatedly stresses the need to avoid polarization. He speaks of bringing the Church together, of not humiliating his opponents. These are worthy pastoral instincts. But unity without truth is choreography, not communion.

The unity of the Church is not maintained by appearances. It is maintained by fidelity to the deposit of faith. To pursue unity at the expense of clarity is to build on sand.

The faithful do not need to “sit down and talk” about whether the ancient Mass may exist. They do not need hedging on whether marriage is indissoluble. They need their shepherds to speak the truth plainly, without ambiguity, without apology.

The Cost of Ambiguity
Ambiguity unsettles the faithful, emboldens the heterodox, and corrodes trust in the Magisterium. Families displaced from the TLM are told to wait for dialogue. Defenders of marriage are told change is “highly unlikely.” Progressives seize upon ambiguity as permission for further innovation. Traditionalists are forced to parse words for hidden codes.

This is the true cost of ambiguity: it weakens faith, undermines trust, and leaves the Church vulnerable to manipulation.

The Perennial Witness
Against this stands the perennial Magisterium.

– Vatican I declared that revealed doctrine is a deposit “to be faithfully guarded and infallibly declared,” not a subject for revision.¹²
– Leo XIII insisted on the unity of doctrine under the authority of the Magisterium.¹³
– Pius X condemned the very thesis that Leo XIV’s language appears to echo.¹⁴
– Pius XII, in Mediator Dei (1947), warned against treating the liturgy as an experimental field, rather than as a sacred inheritance.¹⁵
– Benedict XVI reaffirmed that the traditional liturgy was “never abrogated.”¹⁶

These popes spoke with clarity. They did not hedge their teaching in probabilities. They proclaimed the faith as unchanging truth.

Conclusion: Clarity or Choreography
The Church now faces a stark choice. Either Leo XIV speaks with clarity — affirming that doctrine is unchangeable and that the liturgy of the ages belongs forever to the Church — or he continues with choreography, offering coded reassurances while leaving the faithful in confusion.

Apostolic proclamation is not probability. It is truth. Catholics do not need a pope who speaks in riddles. They need a successor of Peter who, like the Apostles, proclaims Christ with certainty.

Until such clarity is given, the orthodoxy of this pontificate remains under question, the liturgy remains in jeopardy, and the faithful remain starved of the certainty that only truth can give.

---

1. Crux, interview with Pope Leo XIV, September 2025.
2. Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis (1907), §26.
3. Synod on Synodality, Final Report, §§22–23 (2023).
4. Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890), §22.
5. Pius X, Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), prop. 6.
6. Associated Press, “Pope Leo XIV: Doctrine Unlikely to Change,” September 18, 2025.
7. Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 4, §13.
8. St Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, ch. 23.
9. Crux, interview with Pope Leo XIV, September 2025.
10. Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007), Art. 1.
11. ICLRS TalkAbout, “More Continuity Than Change,” May 2025.
12. Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 4, §14.
13. Leo XIII, Sapientiae Christianae (1890).
14. Pius X, Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), prop. 6.
15. Pius XII, Mediator Dei (1947), §§59–64.
16. Benedict XVI, Summorum Pontificum (2007).