We publish the following essay from Caminante/Wanderer (original in Spanish here, published Sept. 28) not because we agree with all of it—indeed, it overstates its case, for what it describes is by no means characteristic of traditionalists in general, only of a small yet nosiy online subset—but because it expresses an entirely valid criticism of the cottage industry of “naysayers,” self-appointed spokesmen for tradition, who seem to have nothing to do all day but complain about or find fault with Pope Leo XIV and thus squander the energies and weaken the reputation of the traditionalist movement. Indeed, these doomsday writers regularly turn against other trads just as frequently as they turn against conservatives and progressives, because they cannot abide anyone who does not embrace their simplistic pessimism. The author essentially argues that the enormous capital fund that trads raised under Francis are being squandered by them under Leo. To whatever extent the following essay rings true, let us take it to heart and act accordingly. –PAK
Introduction
“It’s worse than a crime; it’s sheer stupidity.” In 1804, First Consul Napoleon had put an end to the excesses of the Revolution and was now able to present himself throughout Europe as a reliable and reasonable ruler. However, in March of that same year, his army kidnapped the Bourbon Duke of Enghien on foreign soil, tried him in a summary trial, and immediately executed him by firing squad. The days were returning when it seemed the French held a monopoly on piracy and could shatter the sovereignties of European kingdoms and countries at will, in true Jacobin fashion. It was worse than a crime; it was sheer stupidity because the assassination brought him hardly any benefits—punishing an alleged conspiracy—but rather countless drawbacks, since it ensured that Napoleon could never reconcile with the Bourbons and prevented him from being accepted by the rest of Europe as an equal. That bloodshed erected a formidable wall around the great Corsican that ultimately destroyed him. It is hardly surprising that it was attributed to the great diplomat and masterful survivor Talleyrand.
Ever since Leo XIV stepped out onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, nearly all traditionalists have fallen into a state of collective hysteria against the new Pope. He had not even moved into the Apostolic Palace when he was already facing fierce attacks, excessive demands, untimely accusations, deafening shouts, and even blackmail, such as that from the Society of St. Pius X. In fact, the first problems and headaches did not come from the progressives—who are in shambles—nor from the neocons—who are in ruins—but from certain traditionalist groups. An insatiability like a black hole, which swallows everything into its black darkness, and nothing satisfies or calms it. Not a single ray of light escapes from a black hole, nor does a shred of hope emerge from these minds. Pure Manichaeism and utter stupidity.
I have no idea why this has happened, nor do I know the root cause of it, though I have some suspicions and intuitions; but, since we have already been accused of reading minds, of a lack of charity, and of rash judgment, we have decided that we will try not to get involved in internal judgments but rather to engage in an exercise in ecclesiastical political realism in the manner of Machiavelli and Tacitus to examine the missed opportunities and the serious errors committed.
The State of Traditionalism During the Election of Leo XIV
Pope Leo was elected Supreme Pontiff on May 8, 2025. For the first time in a very long time, traditionalism and its allies played their cards right and were part of the winning faction in the conclave. For once—and without setting a precedent, given what we now know—they acted with insight, prudence, and intelligence. In addition to this great advantage of not being enemies or opponents of the pontiff from the outset, at the moment of Prevost’s appearance on the balcony of St. Peter’s, they possessed the following capital—which was recklessly squandered on a flurry of fuss:
First, the symbolic capital of being the primary victims of the tyrannical Francis, a pope who came to be universally hated by nearly all ecclesiastical factions—from the most progressive to the most conservative—due to his misrule, injustice, personalism, denunciation, and incompetence.
This despotic chaos led all of Francis’s enemies to view traditionalism with sympathy, to agree with it on many of its points and to accept it as just another legitimate player.
Second, with Leo XIV, a new generation—very different from previous ones—has risen to prominence, one for whom Vatican II and its consequences were experienced as something personal and vital. Prevost’s generation is more pragmatic and rational, and has accepted the Council as a historical fact, without the polemical baggage of previous generations. He is the first pontiff who neither participated in nor was affected by the great ecclesiastical event of the 20th century, nor by its struggles or prejudices. He might be open to constructive debate on many important and fundamental issues, including the place of the Traditional Mass and its movements.
Third, the profound collapse of progressivism as a whole. Francis’s “actually existing” progressivism has been as lethal to its defenders as Soviet progressivism. It is a defeat on all fronts—moral, political, and institutional. As in 1989, only the nomenklatura remains in command. On the other hand, the political and social climate in the centers of progressivism—Europe and North America—is shifting profoundly against it. There will be no external support exerting strong pressure from outside, as there was with Benedict XVI. Progressivism was not going to pose serious obstacles, since it is in shambles and scattered both internally and externally.
Fourth, the growth of traditionalism itself—both in numbers and influence—thanks to the largely unrequited and unappreciated sacrifice of a Pope, the great Benedict XVI, who, through his human and intellectual stature, granted freedom, moral authority, and prestige for the restoration of the Traditional Mass. Traditionalism was stronger than ever and enjoyed a renewed image, free from the burdens of the past.
This was the state of traditionalism at the time of Leo XIV’s proclamation. It was the best it had been since the death of Pius XII in 1958, with greater prospects for renewal on all fronts and for collaboration in the restoration of the Church. Within a year, everything went down the drain due to pride, a spirit of revenge, self-righteousness, and insatiability. Due to pettiness, idiocy, and conceit.
The Beginning of the Tragedy
Prevost was elected as a consensus Pope to restore normalcy to the Church and its day-to-day governance, to bring some peace to the factions that were tearing the Church apart, and to prevent the successive impositions of the various factions. Fresh in everyone’s memory were the terrible period of the so-called “sede vacante” (2000–2005), the Cain-like conflicts of Benedict XVI’s pontificate (2005–2013), and the Franciscan tyranny (2013–2025). In other words, a competent administrator was chosen to restore normal operations to the Vatican, and a moderator to prevent schism after 25 years of civil war. He has devoted himself to this task all this time with the agreement of all factions—from nearly all Franciscans, such as Tucho or Parolin, to the most conservative figures like Sarah or Müller—whether out of selfless concern or very personal interests. Everyone? No, only some traditionalist groups opposed one of the most suicidal, counterproductive, and stupid policies in memory.
De conscriptione modernistarum
I have already spoken in one of the most controversial articles about insatiability, which is a sign of the pride that corrodes us. One can legitimately demand only the minimum required by God: the Creed, the Commandments, and the Sacraments lawfully and validly celebrated according to the rites approved by the Church. Everything else, no matter how good, holy, or beautiful it may be, serves these ends and falls within the realm of prudence; therefore, there must be freedom and recognition of the lawfulness of other options. But some failed to understand this and began demanding a greater purge of all “Franciscites” following the accusation that Leo XIV was a new Francis (Does no one see the contradiction here?). And these very same demanding groups were his most faithful—yet inverted—clones; they are traditionalist Bergoglios in miniature. In other words, they are calling for a return to civil war while holding very little real power in their hands, thereby shattering the fragile truce. They destroyed the image of unjustly mistreated victims and assumed the role of future tyrants and furious revanchists.
On the Titles of the Virgin
The first mistake of the pontificate was the publication of the document on the titles of the Virgin, authored by none other than Tucho. However, opposing those titles is just as legitimate as defending them, since they are not dogmas; no one denies the substance of the matter but rather its formulation; and they are very recent and by no means popular, but rather devotions of very limited groups. This document should have been addressed through an in-depth debate, offering theological arguments, revisiting the Church Fathers and the Saints, and demonstrating authentic Marian devotion. The document was met with hysteria worthy of Monty Python, with personal attacks on Leo XIV, “El Tucho,” and others (what happened to “not judging consciences”?) and with symbolic violence to silence opponents through accusations of heresy, blasphemy, and sacrilege over a minor and legitimate dispute. The defenders of the Faith and Tradition revealed themselves to be censors and fanatical henchmen, rather than profound theologians and people of proven piety like the Fathers and Saints of old.
De schisma êconistarum
Finally, the schism of the Econites—the last straw. Faced with a call for unity and collaboration with all, they responded with haughtiness and have shown that, if it does not suit them, they go off on their own, blackmail the entire Church with outlandish excuses, and worse, a group has been seen—unfairly, yet with some justification—that, deep down and quietly, believe themselves to be the only true Church with the only true sacraments and the only true spirituality, seeking to impose themselves on the rest, the illegitimate lepers of modernism.
These are the three misfortunes that have brought traditionalism to its knees just when it had a golden opportunity—almost unique in decades—to flourish, offer its treasures, and collaborate with other healthy groups in the restoration of the Church. It did not turn out that way; there was a lack of intelligence, humility, and self-criticism; there was a lack of love for the Church and for Christ; there was a lack of the critical spirit needed to distinguish between what is essential and what is incidental. There was an abundance of pride, fanaticism, and self-righteousness; there were too many idols to worship, incense, and sacrifice to, and demands were made that could not legitimately be made.
The capital contributed by suffering has been blithely squandered, and it has been shown that they are just as sick as everyone else and that, as things stand, if they were to seize control of the Church and have free rein to impose their ideas, another great tragedy would befall the Church. These are just judgments from God, for no “-ism” saves—not even the best and holiest of them—except for Him alone and His unfathomable providence
Conclusion
I do not know Pope Leo XIV, nor did anyone know him until his election. I do not know if he will be a more presentable Francis II, a Benedict XVII, or a Pius XIII. I do know that popes neither inherit nor are inherited, whether they like it or not. Nor do I care much about what we say about him; what matters to me is what we do, since this is what is within our power. Perhaps the greatest surprise his pontificate may hold is that he will do what he was asked to do. Moreover, no one even knew where he was born; his voice had barely been heard when the first attacks began, and not even a month had passed before he was furiously attacked—which is why the current excuses about whether we like him or not, what he does and what he doesn’t do, are of no use to me. He was condemned in advance when not a single harsh word or wrongdoing, not a single insult or condemnation—not a single thing—had been directed at him. He was scorned when he offered words and opportunities for reasonable debate and negotiation, and he was not supported when he carried out his duty to defend the unity of the Church. What did they expect the response to be? Flowers, kisses, and smiles…?
We will never know what might have been achieved with a different behavior and attitude—perhaps nothing—but at the very least, authority, prestige, and honor before the entire Church would have been secured, along with recognition of the justice and reason behind the Traditional Mass, and a conviction of total loyalty—loyalty to the good and the truth—to the See of Peter and to the entire Catholic Church. We might not have seen the fruits today, but we would have tomorrow. This was the path of the Divine Master during His earthly life.
For once, all moralists—whether realists or idealists—agree: stultitia est peccatum. What has been done has been a colossal mistake, an act of self-destruction, a long series of ill-fated decisions. They have tied the pontiff’s hands if he intended to resolve the problem peacefully and reasonably, and have provided valid grounds for punishment. Now he cannot grant anything without appearing to abdicate his authority and without seeming to fuel a cancer that endangers the Church. We are already seeing the effects, and the most innocent are bearing the brunt of the damage. There is still an opportunity to make amends for the damage, though it requires a heroic degree of humility: we must step down from the pedestal upon which we have placed ourselves, tear down the idols, change our attitude, take responsibility, and return to what is essential—seeking the Kingdom of God. The rest will be added unto us.
I’ll conclude with a quote—this time, indeed, spoken with certainty by Talleyrand—that best sums up what has happened: “One must never be so imprudent as to demand of the present what the future will bring us with less effort.”
