---

The “Lenten Appeal” as a Symptom of the Conciliar Apostasy

The cited article from Vatican News reports a Lenten message from “Bishop” Barani Eduardo Hiiboro Kussala of Tombura Yambio, South Sudan. The message urges “reconciliation and solidarity” amidst a devastating humanitarian crisis. While the human suffering described is real and tragic, the “bishop’s” response is a quintessential expression of the post-conciliar Church’s apostasy: it replaces the supernatural, hierarchical, and missionary mandate of the Catholic Church with a naturalistic, secular NGO-style program of social work. The appeal is devoid of the non-negotiable elements of Catholic social doctrine—the Social Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the Catholic faith for individual and societal salvation, the primacy of the eternal over the temporal, and the duty of rulers to publicly recognize the Church’s authority. It is a sermon from the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place, offering the world’s wisdom while remaining silent about the Kingdom of God.

1. Factual Deconstruction: A Humanitarian Plea Masking Theological Vacuum

The article centers on the bishop’s call for “reconciliation, solidarity,” and “concrete support for the vulnerable” in response to “hatred, tribal divisions, manipulation of the youth, betrayal, targeted violence, forced divorces, poverty, and diseases.” These are all temporal, social ills. The analysis must begin by noting what is conspicuously absent from both the article’s description of the crisis and the bishop’s proposed solution:

• No mention of sin as the root cause of societal disorder. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864) condemned the error that “moral laws do not stand in need of the divine sanction” (Error 56). The bishop’s diagnosis is purely sociological; he identifies symptoms (violence, poverty) but not the disease: original sin and actual sin, which disintegrates society from within.
• No call for the conversion of South Sudan to the Catholic Faith. The bishop speaks of “reconciliation” without specifying its foundation: the reconciliation of man to God through the Sacrifice of Christ and the Sacrament of Penance. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, explicitly states that Christ’s reign “encompasses all men” and that “no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12) exists. A “Lenten” message that omits the necessity of baptism and submission to the Catholic Church for salvation is a betrayal of the Lenten season’s very purpose: penance for sin and return to God through the Church.
• No assertion of the Social Kingship of Christ over the nation. Pius XI’s encyclical is a systematic refutation of the bishop’s implicit premise. The Pope writes that the “plague” of secularism began with “the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations” and that “the state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations” (i.e., the Church must be free from state control). The bishop appeals to “communities” and “faith leadership” for “dialogue,” but never declares that South Sudan’s laws, justice system, and education must be subordinated to the “divine law” and “Christian principles” as Pius XI demands. He accepts the modern, secularist framework of a neutral state where the Church is one “community” among many, rather than the sole ark of salvation with a right to public primacy.
• No warning about the “enemies within.” St. Pius X, in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi Dominici gregis, identified Modernism as the “synthesis of all heresies.” The bishop’s language of “healing” and “solidarity” is the very language of Modernist “immanentism,” reducing religion to a force for social cohesion. He thus participates in the “diversion from apostasy” condemned in the analysis of Fatima: focusing on external, physical violence while ignoring the internal, spiritual apostasy that has consumed the post-conciliar hierarchy.

2. Linguistic and Rhetorical Analysis: The Language of the NGO, Not the Church

The tone and vocabulary of the bishop’s message, as reported, are those of a United Nations diplomat or a humanitarian aid coordinator, not a successor of the Apostles.

• “Reconciliation and solidarity”: These are vague, secular buzzwords. Catholic reconciliation (reconciliatio) is a sacramental reality, flowing from the Blood of Christ and administered by the Church. “Solidarity” is a term heavily laden with modern socio-economic ideology, detached from its proper Catholic foundation in the mystical body of Christ.
• “Concrete support for the vulnerable”: This reduces the Church’s mission to material aid. While charity is essential, it is not the primary mission. The Church’s first duty is to preach the Gospel for the salvation of souls. The bishop inverts the order, making the corporal work of mercy the headline, while the spiritual works (admonishing sinners, instructing the ignorant) are invisible.
• “Faith leadership in promoting dialogue”: “Dialogue” (dialogus) is the hallmark of the conciliar and post-conciliar “ecumenism project,” condemned as a path to religious indifferentism in the analysis of Fatima and implicitly in the Syllabus (Error 18: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion”). Catholic leadership is not about “promoting dialogue” among equals; it is about commanding all nations to “kiss the Son” (Ps. 2:12) and submit to His law. The bishop’s language presumes a level playing field among religions and ideologies, which is anathema.
• The bureaucratic, report-like structure: The article itself reads like a field report from an aid agency: “humanitarian condition worsens,” “UNICEF report highlights,” “humanitarian organizations warn.” This naturalistic framing bleeds into the bishop’s message, making the Church appear as one more stakeholder in a socio-political problem, not the sole interpreter of divine law and dispenser of grace.

3. Theological Confrontation: Against Pius XI and the Syllabus of Errors

The bishop’s entire approach is a direct repudiation of the immutable Catholic doctrine defined by Pius XI in Quas Primas and condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus.

• On the Nature of Christ’s Kingdom: Pius XI dogmatically teaches: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians… the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The bishop addresses “communities” and “the nation of South Sudan” as if they are autonomous spheres. He does not proclaim that “all power in heaven and on earth” (Matt. 28:18) belongs to Christ, and therefore all human laws, constitutions, and treaties must conform to His law. This is the error of the “moderate rationalists” condemned in the Syllabus (Errors 8-14), who would treat theology as a science subject to human reason, and the error of those who believe the “civil power may interfere in matters relating to religion” (Error 44).
• On the Duty of Rulers: Pius XI: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… The state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men.” The bishop does not address the political leaders of South Sudan with this demand. He makes no mention of their duty to “recognize the divine religion” (Syllabus, Error 77) or to “publicly honor Christ and obey Him” (Quas Primas). His appeal is to “communities” and “the faithful,” effectively ceding the public square to secularism and paganism.
• On the Source of Peace: Pius XI: “Therefore, if men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society, such as due freedom, order, and tranquility, and concord and peace.” The bishop’s plan for “peace” is a humanistic peace based on “dialogue” and “solidarity,” which Pius XI would recognize as the very “seeds of discord” and “flames of envy” that arise when God is removed from public life. True peace is the “peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ” (Quas Primas), which requires the explicit, public, and legal recognition of Catholic doctrine as the sole foundation of law and society.
• On the Role of the Church: The bishop’s model is a “faith leader” among many. Pius XI: “The Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” The bishop’s message accepts the secular framework where the Church must petition for a seat at the table. He does not assert the Church’s ius gladii (right of the sword) in the spiritual realm, which translates into a claim to direct the temporal order towards the supernatural end. This is the error of those who think the Church “ought never to pass judgment on philosophy” (Syllabus, Error 11) or that “the civil power may prevent the prelates of the Church… from communicating freely… with the Roman pontiff” (Error 49).

4. Symptomatic Analysis: The Conciliar “Abomination” in Action

This article is not an anomaly; it is the logical fruit of the “conciliar revolution” and the “abomination of desolation” occupying the Vatican.

• Hermeneutics of Continuity as a Mask for Rupture: The article presents this bishop’s message as a normal, even praiseworthy, exercise of Catholic pastoral care. This is the “hermeneutics of continuity” in action: pretending that the post-conciliar Church’s naturalistic, human-centered “pastoral outreach” is the same as the Church’s supernatural mission. The contrast with Pius XI’s Quas Primas—which is a doctrinal, juridical, and liturgical document defining a feast to combat secularism—could not be starker. Pius XI defines doctrine and institutes a liturgical act to teach it. The modern “bishop” issues a vague appeal and calls for “dialogue.”
• The Silence on the Supernatural: The gravest accusation, as instructed, is the total silence on supernatural matters. There is no mention of:
  • The Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass (the true sacrifice that propitiates God for sin).
  • The Sacraments as the ordinary means of grace (especially Penance for reconciliation).
  • The state of grace and the necessity of being in the Church (the “Barque of Peter”) for salvation.
  • The Four Last Things (Death, Judgment, Hell, Heaven).
  • The demonic origin of societal disorder (cf. Syllabus, Error 58: “All the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches… and the gratification of pleasure.” This is the spirit of the world, which the bishop does not condemn).

  This silence is not neutrality; it is apostasy. It is the “naturalism” Pius X condemned in Modernism (Lamentabili, Prop. 20: “Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God”). The bishop treats the crisis as a purely human problem requiring human solutions.

• The “Church of the New Advent” as an NGO: The structure described—a “bishop” issuing a “Lenten message” via a news agency focused on humanitarian themes—is the modus operandi of the “neo-church.” It has abandoned its divine mandate to “teach all nations” (Matt. 28:19) in favor of “accompanying” and “dialoguing.” The article itself, from Vatican News, is a propaganda piece for this new, reduced, naturalistic “church.”

5. The Catholic Alternative: Christ the King or Chaos

The unchanging, integral Catholic faith, as defined before the rupture of 1958, offers the only coherent alternative. Pius XI’s Quas Primas is the direct antidote to the bishop’s error.

• The Foundation is Hypostatic Union: “Christ not only is to be adored as God by angels and men, but that angels and men are to be obedient and subject to His dominion as Man: that is, through the hypostatic union, Christ has authority over all creatures.” The bishop’s appeal has no such foundation. It is based on “human dignity” and “solidarity,” modern idols. Catholic social order rests on the ontological fact of the Incarnation: the God-Man has a right to reign.
• The Remedy is a Public Feast and Public Profession: Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism.” He decreed that on this feast, “the consecration to the Heart of Jesus be renewed.” This is a public, liturgical, doctrinal act. The modern “Lenten message” is a private, optional, humanitarian appeal. One is a weapon against error; the other is a surrender to it.
• The Goal is the Social Kingship: “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 bishop does not remind the “government” of South Sudan of this duty. He implicitly accepts the secular state’s autonomy, which is the very error condemned in the Syllabus (Errors 39, 41, 42, 44, 55).

Conclusion: The bishop’s Lenten message is a perfect specimen of the post-conciliar apostasy. It takes a real tragedy—the suffering of the people of South Sudan—and offers a false solution: more of the same naturalistic, secular humanism that caused the crisis. It is a “gospel of works” without the Gospel, a “call to peace” without the Prince of Peace, a “Lenten appeal” that has nothing to do with the Lenten Cross. It is the language of the “Church of the New Advent,” which has exchanged the “sweet yoke” of Christ for the heavy yoke of the world’s ideologies. The only true Lenten call for South Sudan is the one Pius XI made to the whole world: to “restore the reign of our Lord” in individuals, families, and states, to “fight bravely and always under the banner of Christ the King,” and to understand that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to Christ the Lord.” Until this is done, all humanitarian efforts, however well-intentioned, are built on sand and will ultimately fail, for “the weapons of our warfare are not carnal” (2 Cor. 10:4), but “mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels, and every height that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

---

Source:
South Sudanese Bishop calls for peace and healing during Lent   (vaticannews.va)
Date: 23.02.2026