Monaco’s “Catholic” Welcome: Modernist Dialogue Over Christ’s Reign
The VaticanNews portal reports that the Archdiocese of Monaco and the Prince’s Palace have announced the upcoming apostolic journey of “Pope Leo XIV” to the Principality on March 28, 2026. The visit, invited by Prince Albert II, is framed as a historic event strengthening “long-standing and trusting diplomatic relations” between the two microstates. The statement highlights shared commitments: “a particular focus on respect for human life from beginning to end; a concern for integral ecology and the preservation of ‘our common home’; and a shared passion for sport.” The local Church, where Catholicism is the state religion per the 1962 constitution, is described as “a central institution in Monegasque life,” and the papal arrival is called “a powerful sign of hope, in a spirit of dialogue, peace, and shared responsibility.” The article notes Monaco’s unique status as one of Europe’s last countries with Catholicism as state religion, though freedom of worship is constitutionally guaranteed. It concludes by situating the visit within centuries of ties, referencing the 1887 bull *Quemadmodum sollicitus Pastor* of Leo XIII establishing the diocese, and upcoming anniversaries in 2027.
This article, emanating from the conciliar sect’s official mouthpiece, presents a sanitized, naturalistic tableau of a “papal” visit that utterly fails to grasp the supernatural mission of the Catholic Church. Its focus on diplomatic niceties, shared secular values, and “dialogue” exposes a profound apostasy from the integral reign of Christ the King, as defined by pre-1958 doctrine. The omission of any reference to the absolute necessity of the public and social reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the duty of Catholic states to recognize the Church’s sovereignty, and the crushing errors of modernism condemned by Pius IX and Pius X, reveals the bankruptcy of the post-conciliar ecclesiology. The visit is not a triumph of faith but a manifestation of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place, where a man of modernist errors is honored as a successor of Peter while the true faith is sidelined.
Naturalistic Humanism Masquerading as Catholic Social Teaching
The article’s core error is its reduction of the Church’s mission to the promotion of naturalistic, worldly values. The “shared commitments” listed—respect for life (limited to biological concerns), integral ecology, and sport—are presented as the pinnacle of Catholic social engagement. This is a direct repudiation of the doctrine of Pope Pius XI in the encyclical *Quas Primas*, which established the feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the secularism that “denied Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” Pius XI declared that the “plague” of his time was “the secularism of our times, so-called laicism,” which “denied the Church’s authority to teach men, to issue laws, to govern nations.” The article’s silence on the Church’s right and duty to teach, govern, and legislate in the temporal order, based on the “laws of the Divine Kingdom,” is deafening. Instead, it promotes a “spirit of dialogue, peace, and shared responsibility” that echoes the condemned errors of the *Syllabus of Errors*. Pius IX explicitly condemned the notion that “the civil power may interfere in matters relating to religion, morality and spiritual government” (Error 44) and that “the Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Error 55). The article’s framing of Church-State relations as a partnership of “shared values” between two sovereigns is the very “indifferentism” and “latitudinarianism” Pius IX anathematized (Errors 15-18). It reduces Catholicism to a benign cultural adjunct to a secular principality, not the *only* true religion that must be publicly professed and protected by the state, as defined by the *Syllabus* (Error 21: “The Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” is condemned).
The Omission of the Supernatural: The Gravest Accusation
The most damning aspect of the article is its complete absence of the supernatural. There is no mention of sin, grace, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the necessity of baptism, the reality of heaven and hell, or the final judgment. This is the hallmark of the modernist “synthesis of all errors” condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici gregis* and *Lamentabili sane exitu*. The *Lamentabili* propositions condemned include: “Faith, as assent of the mind, is ultimately based on a sum of probabilities” (Prop. 25); “The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief” (Prop. 26); and “Christian doctrine was initially Jewish, but through gradual development, it became first Pauline, then Johannine, and finally Greek and universal” (Prop. 60). The article’s language of “hope,” “dialogue,” and “shared responsibility” reflects this evolutionist, practical, and purely naturalistic understanding of faith. It ignores the primary purpose of the Church: the salvation of souls from eternal damnation. Pius XI in *Quas Primas* stated 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 article’s Monaco is a realm of earthly prosperity and “integral ecology,” not a battleground for souls where “the flames of mutual hatred and internal discord consume” those “distant from God.” The silence on the “kingdom of Satan” and the “final judgment” is a deliberate omission that exposes the apostate nature of the conciliar sect’s teaching.
The Fraudulent “Catholic” Identity of the Conciliar Structures
The article repeatedly refers to the “Archdiocese of Monaco,” the “local Church,” and “the Catholic Church” as if these entities possess legitimate Catholic identity. This is a fundamental lie. The structures occupying the Vatican since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958 are part of the “conciliar sect,” as defined by the sedevacantist theological position supported by the file on the Defense of Sedevacantism. The argument from St. Robert Bellarmine, cited therein, is irrefutable: “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.” The antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), like his predecessors since John XXIII, manifests heresy through his consistent promotion of modernism, religious liberty, and ecumenism—all condemned by Pius IX and Pius X. Therefore, the “Archdiocese of Monaco” is a schismatic, modernist structure, not a part of the Catholic Church. Its claim to be “a central institution in Monegasque life” is a claim to influence for a false religion. The article’s description of Monaco as “one of the last countries in Europe to retain Catholicism as its state religion” is a cruel mockery. A state religion that guarantees “freedom of worship” for all errors (as per Monaco’s 1962 constitution) and partners with a modernist antipope in promoting naturalistic values is, in fact, a state endorsement of religious indifferentism, precisely what Pius IX condemned (Error 15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true”). The “Catholic” identity is purely nominal and juridical within the conciliar system, not doctrinal or salvific.
The “Dialogue” and “Peace” of the Antichrist
The article’s concluding emphasis on the visit being “a powerful sign of hope, in a spirit of dialogue, peace, and shared responsibility” is a direct echo of the modernist “hermeneutics of continuity” and the cult of man. This language is antithetical to the Catholic doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ. Pius XI in *Quas Primas* taught that true peace and order flow only from the public recognition of Christ’s reign: “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 “dialogue” promoted by the conciliar sect is the dialogue of *Dignitatis Humanae* and the Assisi meetings, where the one true faith is placed on equal footing with false religions. This is the “ecumenism project” warned against in the file on False Fatima Apparitions, but here it is state-endorsed. The “peace” offered is not the peace of Christ, which requires the submission of all human laws to divine law, but the false peace of the world, which “sows discord everywhere” when God is excluded from public life, as Pius XI lamented. The article’s “shared responsibility” for “our common home” (a phrase from Bergoglio’s *Laudato Si’*) elevates a naturalistic, pantheistic concern for the environment above the supernatural mandate to convert nations to Christ. This is the “cult of man” and “natural religion” Pius IX condemned (Errors 2, 3, 4, 58).
Historical Revisionism and the False “Centuries-Old Ties”
The article attempts to ground the visit in “centuries-old ties” and the 1887 bull *Quemadmodum sollicitus Pastor* of Leo XIII. This is a deliberate historical fraud. The diplomatic relations and diocesan structure established in the 19th century were with a legitimate Catholic Pope and a Catholic principality. The current visit is by an antipope to a state that now guarantees religious liberty and partners in modernist initiatives. The continuity is purely external and juridical, not doctrinal or supernatural. The file on the *Syllabus of Errors* provides the context: Error 77 states, “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” Monaco’s 1962 constitution embodies this condemned error. Therefore, the “historic nature” of the visit is not a continuation of Catholic tradition but a capitulation to the modern secular state model condemned by Pius IX. The reference to the 40th anniversary of the 1981 Convention (elevating the diocese) is particularly grotesque, as 1981 was during the pontificate of the antipope John Paul II, a period of accelerating modernist apostasy. The “780th anniversary of the first parish” is invoked to create a false sense of unbroken Catholic continuity, masking the radical rupture of Vatican II.
The Sedevacantist Reality: A Visit Without a Pope
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith (which cannot recognize the post-1958 hierarchy), this entire event is a sacrilegious farce. The “Pope” visiting is not the Vicar of Christ but a manifest heretic, as proven by his consistent adherence to the errors of Vatican II and his rejection of the immutable faith. According to the theological arguments in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, citing Bellarmine and Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code, a manifest heretic *ipso facto* loses all ecclesiastical office. The bull *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Paul IV declares the elevation of a heretic “null, void, and of no effect.” Therefore, Leo XIV has no jurisdiction, and his visit confers no grace or legitimacy. The “Archdiocese of Monaco” is occupied by a Modernist intruder. The “joyful expectation” of the local “Church” is the joy of apostates welcoming one of their own. The “historic” nature of the visit is the historic finalization of the Great Apostasy foretold by St. Pius X in *Pascendi*: the synthesis of all heresies now reigning from the Vatican. The article’s language of “hope” and “dialogue” is the hope of the world and the dialogue of the Antichrist, who will unite all religions against the true faith.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in Monaco
The article is a masterclass in conciliar doublespeak. It uses the vocabulary of Catholicism—“Archdiocese,” “Catholic Church,” “apostolic journey”—to describe an event that is, in substance, the public worship of the modernized, naturalized, and apostate man. The focus on “human life,” “ecology,” and “sport” is the religion of the human race, not the religion of the Incarnate God who must reign over individuals, families, and states. The omission of Christ’s kingship, the duty of the state to recognize the Catholic faith as the sole true religion, and the terrifying realities of sin and hell, is not an oversight but a deliberate rejection of the *Syllabus* and *Quas Primas*. The visit of “Pope Leo XIV” to Monaco is not a blessing but a curse, a final sign of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place. The true Catholic, adhering to the faith of Pius IX and Pius X, must reject this event with horror, pray for the conversion of the deceived, and cling to the immutable faith outside the conciliar sect. The “joy” of the article is the joy of the world; the peace it offers is the peace of the Antichrist. The only true peace is that which comes from the public and solemn reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King, as Pius XI taught, a reign utterly absent from this modernist spectacle.
Source:
Church in Monaco awaits Pope Leo with joy (vaticannews.va)
Date: 26.02.2026