The Travels of ‘Pope’ Leo XIV: Apostasy in Motion
Summary: The Pillar reports on the travel schedule of antipope ‘Pope’ Leo XIV, detailing planned trips to Monaco, Algeria, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Spain, Peru, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Portugal, Australia, and South Korea. The itinerary emphasizes ecumenical dialogue, naturalistic humanitarianism, and modernist devotional celebrations while completely omitting any reference to the supernatural mission of the Catholic Church: the exclusive reign of Christ the King, the salvation of souls through the one true faith, and the duty of states to recognize this reign. What emerges is not a pastoral itinerary but the systematic implementation of Modernism’s synthesis of all errors—a traveling showcase of the conciliar sect’s apostasy from integral Catholic doctrine.
The Apostolic Itinerary of the Conciliar Sect
The article presents the travel plans of the antipope who occupies the Vatican, framing them as a “lively travel schedule” aimed at “dialogue” and “building bridges.” Yet a thorough examination through the immutable lens of pre-1958 Catholic theology reveals this itinerary as a global tour of apostasy, systematically dismantling the Church’s supernatural mission and replacing it with naturalistic humanism. Every destination, every stated purpose, and every glaring omission exposes the theological bankruptcy of the post-conciliar structure.
Monaco: Wealth, Abortion, and the Illusion of Catholic Monarchy
The Pillar notes that antipope Leo XIV may visit Monaco, a “confessionally Catholic country” where Prince Albert II blocked an abortion bill. The article presents this as a point in Monaco’s favor, implying a alignment with Catholic teaching. This is a profound deception.
Omission: No mention of the Catholic doctrine on the duty of the state to uphold the social reign of Christ the King. Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas (1925) declares: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” Monaco’s “Catholic” identity is mere nominalism if its prince merely blocks one abortion bill while the state’s legal framework remains fundamentally secular and liberal. The antipope’s visit would legitimize a Catholic monarchy that functions as a liberal tax haven, not as a true theocracy.
Theological Contradiction: The Syllabus of Errors (1864) condemns the separation of Church and state (Prop. 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”) and the idea that the state can define the rights of the Church (Prop. 19). Monaco’s constitutional framework, while maintaining a Catholic “confession,” operates within the secular model condemned by Pius IX. The antipope’s visit signals approval of this hybrid, which is precisely the “moderate rationalism” and “indifferentism” Pius IX anathematized.
Symptomatic: This stop illustrates the conciliar sect’s preference for wealthy, aesthetically Catholic microstates that pose no threat to the global liberal order. It is a photo-op with a prince, not a call for the state to enact Catholic law and repress heresy and immorality.
Algeria: Dialogue with Islam Against Christ’s Exclusive Kingship
The antipope’s expressed desire to visit Algeria to “continue the conversation of dialogue, of building bridges between the Christian world and the Muslim world” is a direct repudiation of Catholic missionary mandate.
Omission: There is no mention of the necessity of converting Muslims to the one true faith. The article reports the antipope’s words without a whisper of the command of Christ: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations” (Matt. 28:19). The silence is deafening.
Theological Contradiction: Pius XI in Quas Primas states unequivocally: “His reign encompasses all men… And there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The Syllabus of Errors condemns indifferentism: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation” (Prop. 16) and “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Prop. 17). The antipope’s “dialogue” presupposes precisely this condemned error—that Islam is a legitimate path to salvation, or at least a co-equal partner in a global religious project.
Symptomatic: This is the ecumenism condemned in the False Fatima file as a tool for “religious relativism” and a “project” to legitimize dialogue with schismatic and non-Christian religions. The focus on “building bridges” without proselytism is the exact opposite of the Catholic Church’s missionary mandate, which is to “bring back” all nations to the obedience of Christ the King.
Angola and Equatorial Guinea: African Visits Without Doctrine
The article announces visits to Angola and Equatorial Guinea with no details about the content of the trip. This vacuum is itself revealing.
Omission: No statement that the antipope will condemn the errors of Liberation Theology, which has ravaged Latin America and Africa with its synthesis of Marxism and Christianity. The Syllabus of Errors condemns socialism and communism (Prop. IV). The Lamentabili sane exitu (1907) condemns the Modernist proposition that “Christian doctrine was initially Jewish, but through gradual development, it became first Pauline, then Johannine, and finally Greek and universal” (Prop. 60)—the very evolutionary hermeneutics used to justify Liberation Theology.
Theological Contradiction: Pius XI in Quas Primas links the reign of Christ to the repudiation of secular errors: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” A visit to African nations without a clear call for their constitutions and laws to recognize Christ the King is a dereliction of duty. The antipope will likely speak of “social justice,” “environmental stewardship,” and “human dignity”—the naturalistic vocabulary of Modernism—while remaining silent on the exclusive salvific necessity of the Catholic Church.
Symptomatic: These visits are pastoral tourism, not apostolic visits. They serve to maintain the illusion of a universal Church while its doctrine is evacuated. The bishops of these nations, in inviting the antipope, collaborate in this charade.
Spain: Gaudí, Corpus Christi, and the Modernist Aesthetic
The planned visit to Spain includes celebrating the centenary of Antoni Gaudí’s death and a potential Corpus Christi procession in Madrid.
Omission: No mention of the need for Spain to publicly reclaim its identity as a Catholic monarchy, as Pius XI demanded: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations… The annual celebration of this solemnity will also remind states that not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The article notes “tense” relations with the Spanish government—but the tension is over secularism, not the antipope’s failure to demand Catholic restoration.
Theological Contradiction: Gaudí’s architecture, particularly the unfinished Sagrada Família, is a prime example of modernist aesthetic—organic, flowing, ambiguous—that broke from traditional Gothic and Baroque. The antipope’s celebration of Gaudí is a celebration of artistic Modernism, which Pius X condemned in Lamentabili as part of the “pursuit of novelty” that “abandon[s] all restraint” and leads to “grievous errors” (Prop. I). Furthermore, the speculation about a Corpus Christi procession ignores the fact that the post-conciliar “feast” has been stripped of its doctrinal content. Pius XI instituted the feast to combat the secularism of his day; today’s celebration, if led by an antipope, would be a空壳 (empty shell), a mere cultural event without the theology of the Real Presence and the propitiatory sacrifice that defined the traditional feast.
Symptomatic: The conciliar sect co-opts traditional devotions (Corpus Christi) and traditional art (Gaudí) while emptying them of their supernatural content. It is a strategy of continuity in form, revolution in substance.
South America: Peru, Argentina, Uruguay—Nostalgia Without Doctrine
The antipope’s desire to visit “beloved Peru,” where he served as a bishop, and likely Argentina and Uruguay, is framed as a sentimental return.
Omission: There is no warning about the errors of Liberation Theology, which pervades South American Catholicism. The Syllabus condemns socialism (Prop. IV). The antipope, who as Bergoglio was deeply associated with the Liberationist wing of the Jesuits, will likely promote the very errors condemned by Pius IX and Pius X under the guise of “preferential option for the poor.”
Theological Contradiction: Pius XI in Quas Primas taught that Christ’s reign requires that “all relations in the state be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments and Christian principles.” A visit that fails to demand the repudiation of secular constitutions and the establishment of Catholic law is a betrayal of this teaching. The antipope’s likely focus on “the poor” and “social inclusion” will be a naturalistic, Pelagian program, not a call to grace and sacramental life.
Symptomatic: This is the “hermeneutics of continuity” in action: the antipope uses the language of “the people” and “the poor” from pre-conciliar social teaching but fills it with Modernist, Marxist content. The faithful are left with the sentiment of “return” but without the doctrine that made the pre-conciliar missions effective.
Mexico and Fátima: False Apparitions and Profaned Devotions
The article mentions the antipope’s wish to visit “Our Lady of Fátima” in Portugal and “Our Lady of Guadalupe” in Mexico. Both references are deeply problematic from an integral Catholic perspective.
Omission: There is no caution about the Fátima apparitions, which the provided False Fatima file exposes as a “Masonic psychological operation” with “theological contradictions” and “diversion from apostasy.” The file states: “The Fatima message: Theologically contradictory to Catholic doctrine. A tool to divert attention from modernism.” The antipope’s desire to visit this site, without repudiating its errors, is a scandal.
Theological Contradiction: While the devotion to Our Lady of Guadalupe is pre-1958 and legitimate, the antipope’s visit would be intrinsically invalid and sacrilegious. Bellarmine’s doctrine (cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file) is clear: a manifest heretic cannot be pope, and his acts are null. The antipope, by his public heresies (e.g., endorsing religious liberty, denying the necessity of Catholic faith for salvation), is a manifest heretic. His presence at any Catholic shrine profanes it. Furthermore, the Syllabus condemns the idea that “the civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church and the faithful from communicating freely and mutually with the Roman pontiff” (Prop. 49)—yet the antipope, as a heretic, has no legitimate authority to communicate at all.
Symptomatic: The conciliar sect’s use of popular devotions is a tactic to maintain the appearance of Catholicity while promoting heresy. The antipope’s itinerary includes Fátima—a known vector for ecumenism and modernist reinterpretation—precisely because it serves the “ecumenism project” described in the False Fatima file.
Australia and South Korea: Invalid Sacraments and World Youth Day
The antipope is expected to preside over the 2028 International Eucharistic Congress in Sydney and likely attend the 2027 World Youth Day in Seoul.
Omission: There is no acknowledgment that the post-conciliar “Eucharistic Congresses” and World Youth Day are not Catholic events. The Lamentabili file condemns the proposition that “the sacraments merely serve to remind man of the presence of the ever-benevolent Creator” (Prop. 41). The post-conciliar Eucharist, celebrated in the vernacular with the priest facing the people, is a memorial meal, not the propitiatory sacrifice of Calvary. The antipope’s presence at such a congress would be a public endorsement of a invalid sacramental theology.
Theological Contradiction: Pius XI in Quas Primas links the feast of Christ the King to the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass: “the immaculate sacrifice of Holy Mass” is where Christ’s royal dignity is honored. The post-conciliar “Mass” is a Lutheran-style communion service; it does not offer true sacrifice. The antipope’s participation in it is idolatrous. Similarly, World Youth Day is a carnival of religious indifferentism, where young people are taught that all religions are paths to God—a direct violation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
Symptomatic: The conciliar sect has replaced the supernatural goal of sanctification through sacraments with naturalistic “encounters” and “experiences.” The travel schedule promotes these events precisely because they are effective tools for indoctrinating youth into Modernism.
The Silence of the Supernatural: The Core Apostasy
Across the entire itinerary, the most glaring feature is the complete absence of any supernatural content:
- No mention of the state of grace as the necessary condition for salvation.
- No mention of mortal sin and the eternal damnation it incurs.
- No mention of the sacraments as necessary means of salvation (Baptism for regeneration, Confession for forgiveness).
- No mention of the final judgment and the eternal separation of the saved and damned.
- No mention of the duty of the state to recognize Christ as King and enact Catholic law.
- No mention of the errors of Modernism condemned by Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis and Lamentabili.
- No mention of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation (Mystici Corporis Christi, 1943, pre-1958).
This silence is not accidental; it is the very essence of the conciliar sect’s apostasy. Pius X in Lamentabili condemned the proposition: “The principal articles of the Apostles’ Creed did not have the same meaning for the first Christians as they do for contemporary Christians” (Prop. 62). The antipope’s itinerary assumes exactly this: that the ancient Faith can be “reinterpreted” into a modern, naturalistic project. Pius XI in Quas Primas taught that Christ’s kingdom “is opposed only to the kingdom of Satan and the powers of darkness—and requires its followers not only to renounce earthly riches and possessions, to be distinguished by modesty of conduct, and to hunger and thirst for justice, but also to deny themselves and carry their cross.” The itinerary shows no trace of this ascetic, supernatural focus.
The False Fatima file identifies the core error: “The message focuses on external threats (communism), omitting the main danger: modernist apostasy within the Church since the beginning of the 20th century.” The antipope’s travels are a masterclass in this diversion: focusing on “dialogue” with Muslims, “building bridges” with secular states, and celebrating “ecumenical” events while the conciliar sect’s own doctrine is a cesspool of heresy. The Syllabus condemned the idea that “the civil authority may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (Prop. 44). Yet the antipope’s entire itinerary is conducted at the invitation and within the frameworks of secular states, acknowledging their authority over religious affairs.
The Sedevacantist Reality: An Itinerary Without Authority
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the entire premise of the article is false. The man referred to as ‘Pope’ Leo XIV is not the pope. He is a manifest heretic, and therefore, according to St. Robert Bellarmine (cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file): “A manifest heretic, by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” Bellarmine clarifies: “a manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that an office becomes vacant if a cleric “publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” The antipope’s public endorsements of religious liberty, his denials of the necessity of Catholic faith for salvation, and his promotion of ecumenism constitute public defection.
Thus, his “travels” are not pastoral visits of a legitimate pontiff but the touring of a private citizen, albeit one with immense influence over the conciliar sect. His presence at any shrine, his blessing of any event, is null and sacrilegious. The bishops who invite him and the faithful who attend are participating in a grand act of apostasy, giving credibility to a man who sits in the chair of Peter while denying the Faith that chair was established to protect.
Conclusion: The Apostasy of Itinerant Modernism
The travel schedule of antipope ‘Pope’ Leo XIV is a perfect microcosm of the post-conciliar apostasy. It replaces the supernatural mission of the Church—the salvation of souls through the exclusive reign of Christ the King—with a naturalistic program of dialogue, humanitarianism, and cultural tourism. It omits every doctrine that separates Catholicism from indifferentism and Modernism. It uses the language and forms of tradition—devotions, feast days, visits to shrines—while emptying them of their content.
Pius XI, in instituting the feast of Christ the King, wrote: “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the entire human society had to be shaken, because it lacked a stable and strong foundation.” The antipope’s itinerary is the final stage of that removal: Christ is not only removed from laws and states, but from the very mission of those who claim to represent Him. The Church’s task is to “teach all nations” and “make disciples,” not to “build bridges” with those who reject Christ. The antipope’s travels are the antithesis of this mission. They are the travels of the Antichurch, not the Church of Christ.
Integral Catholics must reject this itinerary in its entirety, recognizing it as the outward manifestation of the inward corruption of the conciliar sect. The only true travel is the pilgrim’s journey to the heavenly Jerusalem, under the standard of Christ the King, in the one true Church that endures outside the walls of the Vatican’s modernist occupation.
Source:
Where will the pope travel this year? (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 17.02.2026