Abbé Claude Barthe: The Pontificate of Leo XIV, a Transitional Stage?

[Stone]

Argumentum ex concessis
Notes in the Margin of an Article by Abbé Claude Barthe
Taken from here [Emphasis - The Catacombs]

Link

Si enim secundum carnem vixeritis, moriemini:
si autem spiritu facta carnis mortificaveritis, vivetis.

For if you live according to the flesh, you will die;
but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the flesh, you will live. Rom 8: 13

The essay by Abbé Claude Barthe’s, recently published in an Italian translation at Aldo Maria Valli’s blog Duc in altum [1], deserves some attention. What is most interesting in it is not so much his assessment of the newly elected Leo XIV, nor the pragmatic realism with which he recognizes Prevost’s continuity with his predecessor or calls for a loosening of restrictions on the traditional liturgy.

Abbé Barthe writes:

There is a paradox, even a risk, for those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism: that of being granted a sort of “authorization” for liturgical and doctrinal Catholicism. We have already cited as an example the paradoxical situation that arose in the 19th-century French political system, when the most staunch supporters of the monarchical Restoration, enemies in principle of the modern freedoms introduced by the Revolution, continually fought to be granted a space for life and expression, freedom of the press, and freedom of teaching. All things being equal, in the ecclesiastical system of the 21st century, at least in the immediate future, a relaxation of the ideological despotism of the Reformation could be beneficial. But while it may be advantageous in the short and medium term, it could ultimately prove radically unsatisfactory.

What I believe should be highlighted is the not-so-veiled warning that Abbé Barthe addresses to those who resort to the adversary’s arguments to gain legitimacy in the ecclesial world, applying the argumentum ex concessis [2]. In this case, “those who invoke freedom for the traditional liturgy and catechism” – and who condemn Bergoglian synodality – appeal to that same synodality so that the “Summorum Pontificum communities” may be recognized as one among the many expressions of the composite ecclesial polyhedron.

Abbé Barthe’s denunciation reveals not a paradox, but the paradox, the contradiction that fundamentally undermines any claim to orthodoxy on the part of self-styled conservatives: the acceptance of the revolutionary principles of the so-called “synodal church” as the (incomplete, moreover) counterpart to being tolerated by it. In reality, this exchange is far from equal. The “synodal church” merely applies to conservatives the same legitimacy of existence it grants to any other “movement” or “charisma” present in the multifaceted ecclesial fabric, but it carefully avoids acknowledging that their demands might go beyond a mere aesthetic and ceremonial concession. The unwritten contract between conservatives and the post-Bergoglian Hierarchy stipulates that the “liturgical preferences” of a group of clerics and faithful can be tolerated if and only if they refrain from highlighting the heterogeneity, incompatibility, and alienation between the ecclesiology and the entire doctrinal framework underlying the Vetus Ordo and those expressed in the reformed Montinian rite.

Abbé Barthe does not ignore the critical issues: referring to Leo XIV’s Electors, he calls them “all of the conciliar menagerie,” demonstrating a certain courage, especially considering his public role and his dependence on those Prelates. Nor does he ignore the deception embraced by those who exploit religious liberty to invoke for themselves a tolerance that is not denied even to the worshippers of Amazonian idols.

The deception is twofold: not only because of the paradox that Abbé Barthe has rightly highlighted; but also and above all because of a much worse trap, consisting of accepting at least implicitly the forced, unnatural, and impossible separation between the ceremonial form of the rite and its doctrinal substance.

This is an operation of de-signification of the Liturgy, which consists in being recognized with the right to celebrate in the Tridentine Rite on the condition that the celebrant does not also accept the doctrinal and moral implications of that rite. But if that “Summorum priest” accepts this principle, he must also accept its inverse application. Indeed, the moment one admits that the Liturgy can be celebrated without regard for the traditional doctrine it expresses – a doctrine the “synodal church” does not recognize and considers to be other than itself – one ends up accepting that even the reformed liturgy can ignore the errors and heresies it insinuates, errors which no Catholic worthy of the name can absolutely ratify. In doing so, however, one plays into the hands of the adversary, under the illusion of being more cunning than the devil. It all comes down to a question of dress and choreography, of aesthetics and sentiment that satisfies or does not satisfy personal taste, as Cardinal Burke’s recent words confirmed: “You don’t take something so rich in beauty and begin to strip away the beautiful elements without having a negative effect.” [3] Nothing could be more alien to the mindset of the Roman Liturgy, according to which the beauty of ceremonies is such because it is a necessary expression of the Truth it teaches and the Good it practices.

The “synodal church” includes conservatives in its coveted pantheon not only because it gives them what they want – solemn pontifical liturgies celebrated by influential prelates, without doctrinal implications – but also because none of the Holy See’s interlocutors has the slightest intention of demanding more; and even if someone were to dare ask for more, the gatekeeper on duty – literally, the ostiarius –would promptly intervene, calling for “prudence” and “moderation,” more concerned with preserving his own prestige than with the fate of the Catholic resistance. This is accompanied by the “Zip it” [4] policy advocated by Trad Inc. [5], according to which the possible concessions the moderates hope to obtain from Leo suggest they should not criticize him openly so as not to alienate him.

The path of being persecuted, ostracized, and excommunicated do not seem to be among the options for my brothers: it seems they are already resigned to a fate of tolerance, in which they can neither be truly Catholic nor fully synodal; neither friends of those who fight the enemy infiltrated into the Church, nor of those who seek to replace her with a human surrogate of Masonic inspiration. The Lord will hold these lukewarm priests accountable with greater severity than He will many poor parish priests who have other, more pressing pastoral priorities. Let us hope that Abbé Barthe’s warning does not fall on deaf ears, for the hour of battle approaches, and to be found defenseless and unprepared, in these circumstances, would be irresponsible.

And it is precisely in times of persecution that we must rediscover the relevance and validity of the words of Saint Vincent of Lérins:

In ipsa item catholica ecclesia magnopere curandum est ut id teneamus quod semper, quod ubique, quod ab omnibus creditum est; hoc est etenim vere proprieque catholicum. [6]

If anything does not meet these three criteria – semper, ubique, et ab omnibus – it must be rejected as heretical. This norm protects us from the errors spread by false pastors, in the serene certainty of acting in accordance with Tradition and thus being able to compensate, due to the present state of emergency, for the absence of ecclesiastical authority.

+ Carlo Maria Viganò, Archbishop

3 September MMXXV
S.cti Pii X Papæ, Conf.





FOOTNOTES
1 – Abbé Claude Barthe, Leone, il pompiere nella Chiesa divorata dal fuoco della divisione. Ma quale unità ricerca?, published at Duc in Altum on August 9, 2025 – https://www.aldomariavalli.it/2025/08/09...a-ricerca/ – English translation: https://www.resnovae.fr/the-pontificate-...nal-stage/

2 – Argumentum ex concessis is a rhetorical and logical technique in which an interlocutor uses the premises, arguments, or claims accepted by an opponent to construct their own argument, often to refute them or demonstrate the inconsistency of their position. This strategy is based on the idea of temporarily accepting the opponent’s claims (the “concessions”) and using them to draw conclusions that either challenge them or support their own thesis.

3 – Cfr. https://x.com/mljhaynes/status/1954919906492747838

4 – Cfr. https://www.radiospada.org/2025/09/leone...n-7-punti/

5 – “Trad Inc.” is the American expression which refers to conservative believers and blogs organized like companies, which operate according to market logic and are dependent on their shareholders.

6 – Commonitorium, 2. “In this same Catholic Church, we must take the greatest care to maintain what has always been believed, everywhere and by all; this is in fact truly and properly Catholic.”