In his article "Is Leo XIV a Great Restorer, Francis 2.0, or Simply Another Post-Conciliar Pope?", Robert Morrison (2025) addresses the complexity of evaluating a post-Francis pontificate which presents itself as more traditional than its predecessor. The author contrasts two perspectives: the first, aligned with Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre's 1974 Declaration, which views the crisis in the Church as a systemic evil originating from the Second Vatican Council, considering popes like Francis as a logical consequence of this "revolution"; the second, from Catholics who identified the crisis acutely with Francis and might, therefore, interpret the actions of a new pope as the end of the crisis. Morrison warns against accepting superficial reforms—such as reversing Traditionis Custodes or correcting Fiducia Supplicans—as a solution. He argues that such measures are mere palliatives that do not treat the underlying "cancer": the errors of the Council itself. The only faithful attitude, he concludes, is the categorical refusal of the conciliar "reformation" in its entirety, continuing the fight for the unadulterated Catholic faith until Rome abandons its modernist and liberal principles.
The analysis proposed by Morrison (2025) on the state of the Church under a successor to Francis is timely, yet the diagnosis, while correct in its conclusion, can be deepened with greater doctrinal precision to prevent the discussion from remaining in the realm of papal personalities, rather than focusing on the root of the evil. The central issue is not whether one pope is better or worse than the previous one, but whether he adheres to or combats the revolution that has been poisoning the Church for over sixty years.🔍Identifying the Root of Evil
It is a grave error to situate the beginning of the crisis in a specific pontificate, be it that of Paul VI or Francis. These are the executors of a much older plan, whose fruits were harvested at the Second Vatican Council. The current crisis is the manifestation of the triumph of an ideology repeatedly condemned by the pre-conciliar popes: liberalism. This "monstrous theory" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 7) is, in essence, the application of naturalism and Protestant subjectivism to the legal norms and life of society, resulting in the proclamation of the rights of man without God and the organization of a society without Our Lord Jesus Christ.
The Council was not an accidental rupture, but the culmination of a deliberate effort to reconcile the Church with the principles of the French Revolution of 1789. It was, in fact, a "counter-Syllabus" that sought to "assimilate two centuries of liberal culture" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 7). Therefore, the disease afflicting the Mystical Body is not a pontiff, but the very liberalism he promotes. Any pope who does not categorically reject the Council and its liberal reforms is not a restorer, but a continuator of the demolition.
💊The Danger of Apparent Remedies
Morrison (2025) rightly warns against the optimism generated by superficial corrections. The reason for such caution is doctrinal. The reversal of Traditionis Custodes would be welcome, but useless if the Mass that replaced it, a fruit of the same liberal spirit, remains the ordinary rite. The correction of documents like Fiducia Supplicans or Amoris Laetitia would be a relief, but insufficient if the source of such deviations—the false humanism and the primacy of subjective conscience promoted by the Council—is not condemned.
The fundamental error of Vatican II, which poisons all its fruits, is the Declaration on Religious Liberty, Dignitatis Humanae. This document frontally contradicts the constant Magisterium of the Church by defending a natural right to error. It grants "the same right to truth and to error, to the true religion and to the heretical sects" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 53). In doing so, the Council dethroned Our Lord Jesus Christ, denying His Social Kingship and promoting the religious indifferentism of the State, which is nothing other than "atheism without the name" (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 41). As long as this error is not extirpated, any "restoration" will be an illusion, a mere rearrangement of the symptoms while the cancer of liberalism continues its metastasis.
👑The Only Catholic Attitude: The Kingship of Christ
The solution to the crisis does not lie in negotiating with the revolution or in seeking a "new equilibrium" with liberalism. The solution lies in the integral restoration of Catholic doctrine, which necessarily implies the restoration of the Social Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Society, just like the individual, has the duty to submit to God and His law. The State cannot be neutral; either it recognizes Christ as King, or it becomes, in practice, an instrument of apostasy.
As such, the evaluation of any pope must be based on a single criterion: does he work to "restore all things in Christ" (omnia instaurare in Christo) (Lefebvre, 1991, p. 22), or does he continue to promote the liberal agenda of a world without God? As long as a pope, by his actions and teachings, aligns himself with the spirit of the Council—which is the spirit of dialogue with error, of freedom for all religions, and of a humanism that puts man in the place of God—he will be an agent of the Church's self-demolition, no matter how conservative his rhetoric may seem.
The only attitude of faithfulness to the Church and to Catholic doctrine, for the sake of our salvation, is the categorical refusal to accept this conciliar reformation. The fight is not merely for a liturgy or a catechism, but for the crown of Our Lord Jesus Christ, which was torn away by the liberal apostasy sanctioned at Vatican II.
📚References
Lefebvre, Marcel. Do liberalismo à apostasia: a tragédia conciliar. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Permanência, 1991.