No Unity of Faith: Leo XIV Releases ‘Apostolic Letter’ Filled with Ecumenical Bilge and Other Errors

For 1700th anniversary of Council of Nicea…

No Unity of Faith: Leo XIV Releases ‘Apostolic Letter’ Filled with Ecumenical Bilge and Other Errors

This past Sunday, Nov. 23, 2025, on the occasion of the Novus Ordo feast of ‘Jesus Christ, King of the Universe’, the current false pope in Rome, Bob Prevost from Chicago (‘His Holiness Leo XIV’), released a new ‘apostolic letter’ regarding the 1700th anniversary of the First Council of Nicea, in which the Catholic dogma of the Most Holy Trinity was defined:

• Antipope Leo XIV, Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei (Nov. 23, 2025)

Ironically entitled In Unitate Fidei (“In the Unity of Faith”), it claims the Council of Nicaea of 325 as the joint heritage of all ‘Christians’, by whom he means all the baptized who believe in the Trinity, regardless of what their religious affiliation is (Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc.).

The letter is being released ahead of Leo XIV’s first ‘Apostolic Journey’ to Turkey, whose main focus will be ecumenism. It is not terribly long, and most of it is an exploration into Church history and the theological questions that led to the dogmatic definitions of the First Council of Nicea (325).

However, In Unitate Fidei is filled to the brim with the ecumenical ecclesiology of Vatican II, which is irreconcilable with the perennial traditional Catholic position of there being one single true Church — the Roman Catholic Church — and countless other groupings, mostly sects, that are not the true Church founded by Christ.

As Pope Pius XII had taught roughly 20 years before the apostate Second Vatican Council (1962-65) turned everything on its head:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ — which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church — we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ”— an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Fathers.

(Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 13; underlining added.)

This doctrine of Pius XII and all of Pius’ predecessors, Leo XIV denies. He subscribes instead to the false ecclesiology of Vatican II, according to which all the baptized who believe in Christ are part of His Mystical Body. People who would like to explore this topic more can do so here:

• Vatican celebrates 60 Years of Ecumenism: How it Contradicts Catholic Doctrine
• The Vatican and the Ecumenical Movement: From Stern Condemnation to Enthusiastic Approval
• No False Unity: Cardinal Stritch’s Rebuff of the Ecumenical Movement
• The Ecclesiology of the Second Vatican Council
• On the True Church of Christ: Vatican II vs. Roman Catholicism
• Christian Unity without Catholicism: ‘Pope’ Francis spews Ecumenical Bilge at General Audience
• Vatican II Ecclesiology Refuted Before Vatican II

In the remainder of this post, we will take a look at Prevost’s new ‘apostolic letter’ and comment on some salient passages.

First, we should point out that In Unitate Fidei contains many true and beautiful elements; these make the document only more dangerous, however, because it means that its poison pills are being offered in attractive wrapping paper. One online commentator from the recognize-and-resist camp has gone so far as to claim that “one might even say there is a clear anti-Modernism present in the text” simply because it clearly rejects Arianism as objectively false. On Twitter, this turned into the claim that the document’s “doctrine is sharp, even boldly anti-Modernist….”

Let’s see about that.

First, Leo couldn’t pen an opening sentence without invoking the insufferable trope of, you know, ‘walking together’. That’s small potatoes, of course, but it is emblematic.

One need not read very far before encountering the first problematic ideas: “As I prepare for my Apostolic Journey to Türkiye [sic], I would like this Letter to encourage the whole Church to renew her enthusiasm for the profession of faith. For centuries, this enduring confession of faith has been the common heritage of Christians, and it deserves to be professed and understood in ever new and relevant ways.”

If there’s one thing the Vatican II Church isn’t known for, it’s enthusiasm for the profession of faith, at least not the Catholic Faith. What makes this worse, however, is that by “the whole Church” Leo actually means to include also the ‘separated brethren’, that is, heretics and schismatics as well, whom he believes also profess the ‘faith’. This is clear, for example, from his Sep. 14 ecumenical liturgical celebration commemorating “the Martyrs and Witnesses of the Faith of the 21st century”, and also from the message he sent to the Stockholm Ecumenical Conference earlier this year. Furthermore, in n. 9 of In Unitate Fidei, Prevost writes of Catholics, heretics, and schismatics: “All of us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, are baptized ‘in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit'” (underlining added).

The chief error underlying the post-Catholic Vatican’s false ecumenical theology is the idea that the Catholic Faith can be had in elements, in parts, or by degrees. According to this ‘cumulative’ ecclesiology, which allows for participation in ecclesial communion to a greater or lesser extent, a man is no longer either Catholic or not but rather ‘more’ or ‘less’ Catholic depending on how many elements of Catholicism he happens to accept.

It won’t come as a surprise that such a concept cannot be found in Catholic doctrine before Vatican II and is indeed contrary to the nature of Faith:

If each of you in the light of faith, meditates within himself on these truths in tranquility of mind before his crucifix, it will be easy for him to see that the outcome of slogans such as you have heard can be nothing else than, by separating you from the Roman Pontiff and the Bishops in communion with him, to separate you from the Catholic Church in its entirety, and consequently you will cease to have her for a Mother. For how could the Church be your Mother, unless your fathers are the shepherds of the Church, that is to say, the Bishops? And how can you boast of the title of Catholic if, separated from the center of Catholicity, that is to say, from this Apostolic and Holy See and from the Sovereign Pontiff in whom God has placed the source of unity, you break with Catholic unity? The Catholic Church is one, she is neither broken nor divided: therefore, your [sect called] “petite eglise” cannot in any sense belong to the Catholic Church.

(Pope Leo XII, Apostolic Exhortation Pastoris Aeterni, n. 4; translation taken from Papal Teachings: The Church, n. 149; underlining added.)

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). …For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is “that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived” [Vatican I, Dogmatic Constitution Dei Filius, Chapter 3].

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9; underlining added.)

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: “This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved” (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim “Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,” only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24; underlining added.)

The traditional teaching is very clear and not hard to understand. It harmonizes not only with the Faith but also with common sense.

Next, we should point out that Leo’s sudden “enthusiasm” for professing the faith is constantly contradicted in practice. For example, when for the occasion of the Chicago ALS March for Life, the new ‘Pope’ had an opportunity to profess the Faith, even quite enthusiastically, to an interreligious audience, he chose instead to offer them warmed-over greeting-card spirituality with a message so generic that it was compatible with just about any religion.

Furthermore, we must not underestimate Prevost’s casually-made remark that the Faith “deserves to be professed and understood in ever new and relevant ways”. This is an explosive comment that will wreak the desired havoc before long. One might say it is a doctrinal ‘time bomb’ set to explode in due time.

Next, Leo XIV says that the Council of Nicea’s “profession of faith in Jesus Christ, Son of God … is the heart of the Christian faith.” That is surely not incorrect, though it is surprising coming from the head of the Vatican II religion; since we are usually told that the poor are at the center of the Gospel, or that the essence of Christianity consists of the love of God and of neighbor.

Indeed, it wasn’t that long ago when ‘Pope’ Francis said in Morocco that “being a Christian is not about adhering to a doctrine”, or when he claimed that “[k]eeping the truth does not mean defending ideas, becoming guardians of a system of doctrines and dogmas, but remaining bound to Christ and being devoted to his Gospel” — as if these two alternatives were in any kind of opposition to each other.

At the same time — perhaps concerned that an emphasis on doctrinal truth might undercut the usual faith-as-humanitarianism-with-liturgy message — Leo XIV refers to Matthew 25 not once or twice but three times in the relatively short apostolic letter:

[n.2] In [Jesus Christ], God became our neighbor, to the extent that whatever we do to any of our brothers and sisters, we do to him (cf. Mt 25:40).

[n. 7] It is precisely by virtue of his Incarnation that we now encounter the Lord in our brothers and sisters in need: “As you did it to one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did it to me” (Mt 25:40).

[n. 11] In following Jesus, the ascent to God passes through descent and dedication to our brothers and sisters, especially the least, the poorest, the abandoned and the marginalized. What we have done to the least of these, we have done to Christ (cf. Mt 25:31-46).

Of course Leo never bothers to explain the true sense of Christ’s teaching concerning “the least of these”.

Commenting specifically on the merits of the good works mentioned in Matthew 25, the Jesuit scholar Fr. Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637) explains that Christ “counts them done to Himself, because they were done to the poor for love of Christ” (Great Commentary, vol. 3 [London: John Hodges, 1891], p. 138; italics added). And in the Act of Charity, we declare unto God: “I love my neighbor as myself for the love of Thee” (source). It thus follows that if any such works are not done for the love of God (at least implicitly), but for some lesser motive, they will have no supernatural value before God, although He might still bestow a natural reward (cf. Mt 6:2).

In short, we can say that whatever good works we do, we do them to Christ in the sense that we do them to please Him; and if we do not do them — either not at all, or not in order to please Him — then we do not do them to Him. That is the beautiful, profound, and yet simple teaching of Our Blessed Lord in Matthew 25. From this follows the sobering truth that one can serve the poor all one’s life and still go to hell: “And if I should distribute all my goods to feed the poor, and if I should deliver my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing” (1 Cor 13:3).

In n. 10 of In Unitate Fidei, Leo blasphemes: “Wars have been fought, and people have been killed, persecuted and discriminated against in the name of God. Instead of proclaiming a merciful God, a vengeful God has been presented who instils terror and punishes.”

Leo implies that there can be no such thing as a holy war, thereby disparaging the Crusades and the Mexican Cristero War, for example. That some people have been killed, persecuted, or discriminated against unjustly is clear — think of the case of St. Joan of Arc, for instance — but Prevost is implying that all killing, persecution, and discrimination in the name of God is evil. That is plainly absurd. “That heretics be burned is against the will of the Spirit”, is one of the errors of Martin Luther condemned by Pope Leo X (Bull Exsurge Domine, error n. 33; Denz. 773).

By rejecting a “vengeful God … who instils terror and punishes” in favor of a “merciful God”, Leo XIV implies that a merciful God cannot also threaten and punish and demand atonement for His outraged honor. This is directly contrary to Divine Revelation, since the God who says, “Revenge is mine…” (Deut 32:35) is the same God who offers merciful forgiveness in Jesus Christ. And yet it is Jesus Christ who said: “…unless you shall do penance, you shall all likewise perish” (Lk 13:3).

In fact, the New Testament is filled with warnings about hell and other punishments if people do not persevere in following Christ to the end. For example:

For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, but a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.

(Hebrews 10:26-30)

These things are not incompatible with a merciful God because threats, warnings, and temporal punishments are a mercy for those who will not repent without them: “For whom the Lord loveth, he chastiseth; and he scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. Persevere under discipline. God dealeth with you as with his sons; for what son is there, whom the father doth not correct?” (Heb 12:6-7).

Lastly, in n. 12, Leo XIV speaks of the “ecumenical value” of the Council of Nicea before ending In Unitate Fidei with an ecumenical prayer to the Holy Spirit. We will reserve commentary on this particular section for a separate post.

Image source: Shutterstock (Riccardo De Luca – Update)
License: paid