NEWS: March 30, 2026
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Bird’s Eye View of the News
RECYCLING DEI VERBUM’S ERRORS –
Leo XIV is trying to repack the Vatican II documents in a way that makes them more attractive and accessible to Catholics today, because he is afraid that “its prophecy is fading away.”1 In his Apostolic Letter A Fidelity that Generates the Future issued last December he re-read the Decrees Optatam totius and Praesbyterorum ordinis, in which the Council gave guidelines to form seminarians and orient priests. I analyzed his Letter here.
/bev315_Au3.jpg)
He initiated 2026 with a series of catecheses in his Wednesday’s general audiences addressing the Constitution
Dei Verbum, which deals with Divine Revelation. I am analyzing the official texts of these five catecheses taken from the Vatican website.
In the first two addresses Pope Prevost presented Divine Revelation as a dialogue between God and man, like a normal conversation of two friends. Actually, he affirmed:
“The fulfilment of this revelation takes place in a historical and personal encounter in which God himself gives himself to us, making himself present, and we discover that we are known in our deepest truth.” 2
With these words Leo XIV found a way to banalize Revelation and introduced the idea that any Catholic can receive a “revelation.”
This idea clashes with the Catholic notion of Revelation. Although God constantly illuminates the minds and warms the hearts of every Catholic, this action is not called “revelation;” it is called grace. Divine Revelation is what God revealed to the Patriarchs and Prophets in the Old Testament, added to what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles as recorded in the four Gospels, the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse. These revealed teachings in Old and New Testaments constitute an objective ensemble of truths and have only two sources: Sacred Scriptures and Tradition.
As far as written texts are concerned, Divine Revelation ended officially with the death of the last Apostle St. John. Concerning Tradition, Revelation embodies the ensemble of truths that came from the Apostles, and has been transmitted through the generations, as for example the Marian dogmas.
So, to say or suggest that Divine Revelation can take place after that period in History is to pay tribute to Liberalism, Modernism and Progressivism.
In his next catechesis, Prevost went a step further when he affirmed:
“The Word of God, then, is not fossilized, but rather it is a living and organic reality that develops and grows in Tradition. …
/bev315_Hos.jpg)
“In this regard, the proposal of the holy Doctor of the Church John Henry Newman in his work entitled The Development of Christian Doctrine is striking. He affirmed that Christianity, both as a communal experience and as a doctrine, is a dynamic reality, in the manner indicated by Jesus himself in the parables of the seed (cf. Mk 4:26-29) … a living reality that develops thanks to an inner vital force.” 3
When he pretended that “the Word of God is not fossilized,” Leo XIV offended the notion of the immutable Revelation that the Catholic Church always defended, which I exposed above.
Then, he adopted Newman’s concept of the evolution of dogma, which was also adopted by the modernists and condemned by St. Pius X in vigorous terms:
“Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [the texts of the Sacred Scriptures] express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. …. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus, the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion.” 4
On his fourth catechesis on Dei Verbum, Leo XIV reached a more explicit formulation of his progressivist thinking. Indeed, referring to the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures he stated:
“Throughout the course of Church History, the relationship between the divine Author and the human authors of the sacred texts has been studied. For several centuries, many theologians were concerned to defend the divine inspiration of the Sacred Scripture, almost considering the human authors merely as passive tools of the Holy Spirit. … As a keen exegete of the last century observed, ‘to reduce human activity to that of a mere amanuensis [bureaucrats in charge of taking notes] is not to glorify divine activity.’ God never mortifies human beings and their potential!
“It follows that a correct interpretation of the sacred texts cannot dispense with the historic environment in which they developed and the literary forms that were used; on the contrary, to renounce the study of the human words that God used risks leading to fundamentalist or spiritualist readings of the Scripture, which betray its meaning. This principle also applies to the proclamation of the Word of God: if it loses touch with reality, with human hopes and sufferings, if an incomprehensible language is used, uncommunicative or anachronistic, it is ineffective. In every age, the Church is called to re-propose the Word of God in a language capable of being embodied in history and reaching hearts.” 5
In this text we see Pope Leo XIV entirely assuming the liberal and modernist doctrine condemned by Pius IX, Council Vatican I and Pius X. The following text of Pascendi is quite eloquent in this regard:
“Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic Religion as if this Religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.
/bev315_P09.jpg)
“On the subject of revelation and dogma in particular, the doctrine of the modernists offers nothing new – we find it condemned in the Syllabus of Pius IX., where it is enunciated in these terms: Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to continual and indefinite progress, corresponding with the progress of human reason; and condemned still more solemnly in the Vatican Council: The doctrine of the faith which God has revealed has not been proposed to human intelligences to be perfected by them as if it were a philosophical system, but as a divine deposit entrusted to the Spouse of Christ to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence the sense, too, of the sacred dogmas is that which our Holy Mother the Church has once declared, nor is this sense ever to be abandoned on plea or pretext of a more profound comprehension of the truth.” 6
Pope Pius XII also condemned the notion of the reinterpretation of Revelation in accordance with the progress of History. Dealing with the topic he affirmed:
“The term ‘historicism’ indicates a philosophical system that acknowledges change and evolution in the whole spiritual reality, in the understanding of the truth, in religion and in morality. As a consequence it rejects everything that is permanent, eternally valid and absolute. Such a system is certainly irreconcilable with the Catholic conception of the world.” 7
Refreshing my readers’ memories, these same errors about Revelation and the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures were solemnly stated in the Constitution Dei Verbum of Vatican II, which reads:
“Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for ‘literary forms.’ For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
“For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic style of perceiving, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.” 8
So, unfortunately, there is nothing new in Leo XIV’s catecheses: He is parroting the same errors of Dei Verbum, which were duly condemned many times as destructive of the Catholic Religion.
Leo XIV delivering a catechesis in a general audience
In the first two addresses Pope Prevost presented Divine Revelation as a dialogue between God and man, like a normal conversation of two friends. Actually, he affirmed:
“The fulfilment of this revelation takes place in a historical and personal encounter in which God himself gives himself to us, making himself present, and we discover that we are known in our deepest truth.” 2
With these words Leo XIV found a way to banalize Revelation and introduced the idea that any Catholic can receive a “revelation.”
This idea clashes with the Catholic notion of Revelation. Although God constantly illuminates the minds and warms the hearts of every Catholic, this action is not called “revelation;” it is called grace. Divine Revelation is what God revealed to the Patriarchs and Prophets in the Old Testament, added to what Our Lord Jesus Christ taught to the Apostles as recorded in the four Gospels, the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles and the Apocalypse. These revealed teachings in Old and New Testaments constitute an objective ensemble of truths and have only two sources: Sacred Scriptures and Tradition.
As far as written texts are concerned, Divine Revelation ended officially with the death of the last Apostle St. John. Concerning Tradition, Revelation embodies the ensemble of truths that came from the Apostles, and has been transmitted through the generations, as for example the Marian dogmas.
So, to say or suggest that Divine Revelation can take place after that period in History is to pay tribute to Liberalism, Modernism and Progressivism.
In his next catechesis, Prevost went a step further when he affirmed:
“The Word of God, then, is not fossilized, but rather it is a living and organic reality that develops and grows in Tradition. …
Revelation is an objective ensemble of truths, not a subjective feeling - above the Prophet Hosea by Aleijadinho
When he pretended that “the Word of God is not fossilized,” Leo XIV offended the notion of the immutable Revelation that the Catholic Church always defended, which I exposed above.
Then, he adopted Newman’s concept of the evolution of dogma, which was also adopted by the modernists and condemned by St. Pius X in vigorous terms:
“Hence it is quite impossible to maintain that they [the texts of the Sacred Scriptures] express absolute truth: for, in so far as they are symbols, they are the images of truth, and so must be adapted to the religious sentiment in its relation to man; and as instruments, they are the vehicles of truth, and must therefore in their turn be adapted to man in his relation to the religious sentiment. …. Consequently, the formulae too, which we call dogmas, must be subject to these vicissitudes, and are, therefore, liable to change. Thus, the way is open to the intrinsic evolution of dogma. An immense collection of sophisms this, that ruins and destroys all religion.” 4
On his fourth catechesis on Dei Verbum, Leo XIV reached a more explicit formulation of his progressivist thinking. Indeed, referring to the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures he stated:
“Throughout the course of Church History, the relationship between the divine Author and the human authors of the sacred texts has been studied. For several centuries, many theologians were concerned to defend the divine inspiration of the Sacred Scripture, almost considering the human authors merely as passive tools of the Holy Spirit. … As a keen exegete of the last century observed, ‘to reduce human activity to that of a mere amanuensis [bureaucrats in charge of taking notes] is not to glorify divine activity.’ God never mortifies human beings and their potential!
“It follows that a correct interpretation of the sacred texts cannot dispense with the historic environment in which they developed and the literary forms that were used; on the contrary, to renounce the study of the human words that God used risks leading to fundamentalist or spiritualist readings of the Scripture, which betray its meaning. This principle also applies to the proclamation of the Word of God: if it loses touch with reality, with human hopes and sufferings, if an incomprehensible language is used, uncommunicative or anachronistic, it is ineffective. In every age, the Church is called to re-propose the Word of God in a language capable of being embodied in history and reaching hearts.” 5
In this text we see Pope Leo XIV entirely assuming the liberal and modernist doctrine condemned by Pius IX, Council Vatican I and Pius X. The following text of Pascendi is quite eloquent in this regard:
“Thus then, Venerable Brethren, for the modernists, both as authors and propagandists, there is to be nothing stable, nothing immutable in the Church. Nor indeed are they without precursors in their doctrines, for it was of these that Our Predecessor Pius IX wrote: These enemies of divine revelation extol human progress to the skies, and with rash and sacrilegious daring would have it introduced into the Catholic Religion as if this Religion were not the work of God but of man, or some kind of philosophical discovery susceptible of perfection by human efforts.
Three Popes & a Council condemned Dei Verbum’s concept of Revelation
Pope Pius XII also condemned the notion of the reinterpretation of Revelation in accordance with the progress of History. Dealing with the topic he affirmed:
“The term ‘historicism’ indicates a philosophical system that acknowledges change and evolution in the whole spiritual reality, in the understanding of the truth, in religion and in morality. As a consequence it rejects everything that is permanent, eternally valid and absolute. Such a system is certainly irreconcilable with the Catholic conception of the world.” 7
Refreshing my readers’ memories, these same errors about Revelation and the interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures were solemnly stated in the Constitution Dei Verbum of Vatican II, which reads:
“Those who search out the intention of the sacred writers must, among other things, have regard for ‘literary forms.’ For truth is proposed and expressed in a variety of ways, depending on whether a text is history of one kind or another, or whether its form is that of prophecy, poetry, or some other type of speech. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances as he used contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture.
“For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic style of perceiving, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the customs men normally followed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another.” 8
So, unfortunately, there is nothing new in Leo XIV’s catecheses: He is parroting the same errors of Dei Verbum, which were duly condemned many times as destructive of the Catholic Religion.
- Catechesis of January 7, 2026 § 2;
- Catechesis of January 21, 2026, § 1;
- Catechesis of January 28, 2026, §§ 5, 6;
- Pascendi, § 13, cf. §§ 26-28;
- Catechesis of February 4, 2026, §§ 2, 3;
- Pascendi, § 28;
- Speech to the International Congress of Historical Sciences, September 7, 1955, Discorsi i Radiomessagi di Su Santità Pio XII, vol 17, p. 212;
- Dei Verbum, § 12b.
______________________
______________________
 Volume I |
 Volume II |
 Volume III |
 Volume IV |
 Volume V |
 Volume VI |
 Volume VII |
 Volume VIII |
 Volume IX |
 Volume X |
 Volume XI |
 Special Edition |