The Pillar portal reports that Cardinal Marc Ouellet, former prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, has published an essay arguing that Pope Leo XIV’s appointment of lay people to senior curial positions represents an “ecclesiological advance,” not a “temporary concession.” This follows Leo XIV’s confirmation of three women—including a religious sister—as members of the Dicastery for Bishops, with one serving as its prefect. Ouellet’s essay attempts to provide a theological foundation for lay governance by appealing to the “charismatic dimension of the Church” and “recognition of the authority of charisms,” while distancing himself from the “voluntaristic” papal maximalism previously advanced by Cardinal Gianfranco Ghirlanda, SJ. The article presents this as a mature, post-conciliar development in Church governance, framing the debate as one about theological limits rather than fundamental principle.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith—the unchanging theology of the Church before the revolution of Vatican II—this entire framework is not merely erroneous but constitutes a manifest apostasy. The very premise that “lay governance” at the highest levels of the Church’s central administration can be an “advance” is a denial of the divine constitution of the Church. Ouellet’s argument, far from being a nuanced theological contribution, is a sophisticated re-packaging of Modernism, which St. Pius X condemned as “the synthesis of all heresies.” The article’s tone of cautious exploration, its language of “uncharted territory” and “prophetic gesture,” only deepens the indictment: it reveals a hierarchy completely bereft of supernatural faith, reducing the Church’s governance to a naturalistic, sociological experiment.
The Divine Constitution: Governance Inseparable from Holy Orders
The Catholic Church, before the conciliar apostasy, taught with absolute clarity that the power of governance (potestas jurisdictionis) in the Church is divinely instituted and intrinsically linked to the sacrament of Holy Orders. This is not a disciplinary matter but a theological necessity flowing from the very nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Code of Canon Law (1917), reflecting centuries of theological consensus, states unequivocally: “Those who are constituted in the order of the episcopate or the presbyterate receive the mission and capacity to act in the person of Christ the Head” (Can. 109). Furthermore, “those who have received sacred orders are qualified… for the power of governance, which exists in the Church by divine institution.” The power of governance is not a mere “canonical mission” delegated by a pope at his whim; it is a sacred power conferred by sacramental ordination, enabling one to act in persona Christi Capitis. This is the constant teaching of the Church Fathers and theologians. St. Robert Bellarmine, cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, explains that a bishop’s jurisdiction is not merely delegated but is an office received through the sacrament, and a manifest heretic—who ceases to be a member of the Church—ipso facto loses all jurisdiction.
The Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium, though itself a product of the conciliar revolution, did not deny this link but attempted to obscure it with ambiguous language about “charisms.” Even it stated: “In his consecration a person is given an ontological participation in the sacred functions [munera]; this is absolutely clear from Tradition, liturgical tradition included.” The “ontological participation” is received through ordination. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (pre-conciliar editions) taught: “Christ himself chose the apostles and gave them a share in his mission and authority… Because it is joined with the episcopal order, the office of priests shares in the authority by which Christ himself builds up and sanctifies and rules his Body.”
Therefore, the idea that a lay person—no matter how “competent” or “charismatic”—can legitimately exercise the governing authority proper to bishops or popes is a theological novelty condemned by the pre-1958 Magisterium. Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned the proposition: “The Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect” (#24), but more broadly, the entire section on “Errors Concerning the Church and Her Rights” (#19-38) attacks any notion that civil power (or, by logical extension, non-ordained power) can define or exercise the Church’s inherent rights. The Church’s governance is a spiritual power, reserved to those configured to Christ the Head through ordination.
Ouellet’s Self-Contradiction: From Critique to Endorsement of Modernism
The article reveals a stunning reversal in Ouellet’s position. In 2022, he criticized Ghirlanda’s argument that “the power of governance in the Church doesn’t come from the sacrament of Holy Orders, but from the canonical mission” as a “Copernican revolution… against the ecclesiological development of Vatican Council II.” He correctly saw it as “voluntaristic or arbitrary,” reducing the Church to a mere human corporation whose rules the pope can change at will.
Yet in his 2026 essay, Ouellet arrives at the same practical conclusion—lay governance at the highest levels—but now justifies it through the “charismatic dimension” and “recognition of charisms.” He writes: “Pope Francis discerns the authority of the Holy Spirit at work beyond the link established between the ordained ministry and the government of the Church.” This is not a refinement; it is a surrender. Both arguments—papal positivism and charismatic subjectivism—are two heads of the same Modernist serpent, which seeks to dissolve the hierarchical, sacramental constitution of the Church into a nebulous, evolving “communion” governed by human discernment of “charisms.”
St. Pius X, in the encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (condemned in the Lamentabili sane exitu file), identified this as the core error of Modernism: the subversion of objective, divinely instituted authority into a subjective, evolutionary experience. Proposition #54 of Lamentabili states: “Dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy… are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness.” Ouellet’s argument that governance can now be based on “charism recognized by the supreme authority” rather than sacramental ordination is a direct instantiation of this condemned proposition. He is not “exploring uncharted territory”; he is navigating the charted waters of apostasy, mapped by the Modernists.
The “Charism” Smokescreen: A Modernist Rebranding
Ouellet attempts to draw a line: “There is no question of substituting charismatic governance for hierarchical government.” But this is a meaningless distinction if the “charism” is recognized by the hierarchical authority as sufficient for governing office. He lists dicasteries like “communication, the general government of the Vatican City State, the promotion of integral human development, life, the family and the laity” as potentially led by lay persons. The Dicastery for Bishops—the very body that selects the successors of the apostles—is implicitly included, given the appointments he comments on.
This is a radical break. The Dicastery for Bishops, formerly the Sacred Congregation for Bishops, was historically composed of cardinals and bishops because its function—advising the pope on episcopal appointments and overseeing bishops—is an exercise of the episcopal power of governance. To suggest a lay person can legitimately “direct” such a dicastery is to say that the power to govern the Church’s hierarchy is not itself hierarchical. It is to reduce the Church to a corporation where the CEO (the pope) can hire any qualified manager for any department, regardless of sacramental configuration.
Ouellet’s appeal to Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium is disingenuous. The Council said pastors should “recognize in [the laity] their ministries and charisms, so that all may cooperate…” (cooperent). Cooperation (cooperatio) is not governance (gubernatio). The Council never suggested that lay “charisms” could supplant the ordained ministry in governing the Church. Ouellet’s reading is a classic Modernist hermeneutic of ambiguity, reading into the Council’s pastoral exhortations a revolutionary meaning it never had.
Moreover, his argument that “sacramental theology suffers from a pneumatological deficit” is a false dichotomy. The Holy Spirit acts through the sacraments instituted by Christ. To pit the Spirit against the sacrament is to fall into the very error the Council condemned: a “one-sided Christological vision.” The power of governance comes from Christ, through the Holy Spirit, by means of the sacrament of Holy Orders. To detach governance from Orders is to create a pneumatic, subjective, and ultimately anarchical “church of the Spirit” detached from the visible, hierarchical Body of Christ.
The Sedevacantist Diagnosis: Illegitimate Authorities, Null Reforms
From the standpoint of the unchanging faith, the entire discussion occurs within a phantom institution. The “Pope Leo XIV” mentioned in the article is not the Vicar of Christ. The line of antipopes began with John XXIII, who promulgated Vatican II—a council that, in its documents and spirit, taught condemned propositions (as detailed in the Lamentabili sane exitu file). A manifest heretic cannot be pope. As St. Robert Bellarmine, cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, teaches: “A manifest heretic… by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head… for he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member; now, he who is not a Christian is not a member of the Church, and a manifest heretic is not a Christian.”
The post-conciliar “popes” have consistently manifested heresy: they have promulgated the errors of Vatican II (religious liberty, collegiality, ecumenism), praised false religions, and undermined the Faith. Therefore, their “appointments,” “constitutions,” and “reforms” are ipso facto null. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, cited in the Defense file, states: “Every office becomes vacant by the mere fact… if the cleric… publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” A “pope” who publicly defects from the Faith cannot validly govern or appoint others to govern.
Thus, Ouellet’s essay is not a theological debate within the Catholic Church. It is a discussion among functionaries of a conciliar sect about how to reorganize their paramasonic structure. The “theological merits” they debate are the merits of heresy. The “ecclesiological advance” is the advance of apostasy. The “prophetic gesture” is the prophetic gesture of Antichrist, who will seek to reorganize the world (and the Church) under a naturalistic, human-centered rule.
Christ the King: The Only Solution
Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas, on the feast of Christ the King, provides the only true framework. The encyclical laments that “very many have removed Jesus Christ and His most holy law from… public life” and warns that when “God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The “plague” of our time is secularism, which has now infected the sanctuary. The solution is not to debate how lay people can govern the Church, but to restore the reign of Christ the King over every aspect of ecclesial life—including governance, which must be exercised by those configured to Christ the Priest, Prophet, and King through Holy Orders.
The article’s entire premise—that the Church can “advance” by abandoning her divine constitution—is a lie. The Church is immutable in her essence, as defined by Vatican I (Pastor Aeternus) and the pre-conciliar Magisterium. She cannot “develop” into a lay-led organism. Such a development is corruption, not advance. Ouellet’s journey from criticizing Ghirlanda’s voluntarism to endorsing a charismatic alternative shows not theological growth but the desperate re-arming of a revolution that has run out of arguments. Both positions are condemned by the Faith: one reduces the Church to a papal monarchy of positive law; the other reduces her to a charismatic democracy. The Catholic Church is neither. She is a hierarchical, sacramental, apostolic monarchy, governed by bishops in communion with the true pope, who is the successor of Peter.
Until the hierarchy of the conciliar sect repents and returns to the Faith—or is replaced by valid, Catholic bishops—any discussion of “governance” within their structures is a dialogue of the deaf, conducted in the language of apostasy. The faithful must have no part in it. Their duty is to pray and work for the restoration of the Reign of Christ the King, which can only happen through a return to the integral Catholic faith, outside of which there is no salvation, no legitimate authority, and no true governance.
Conclusion: Ouellet’s essay is not a contribution to theology but a symptom of the systemic apostasy that defines the post-1958 “Church.” By attempting to theologize lay governance, he gives a veneer of respectability to a practice that is, in reality, a repudiation of the Church’s divine constitution. The “reboot” of the debate is merely a new phase in the Modernist infiltration, using the language of “charism” to accomplish what “canonical mission” alone could not: the final dismantling of hierarchical, sacramental authority. This is not an “ecclesiological advance” but a leap into the abyss of schism and apostasy, condemned by every pre-conciliar pope and council.
Source:
What Ouellet tells us about Leo and lay governance (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 16.02.2026