The National Catholic Register (March 13, 2026) reports on the anticipated actions of “Pope” Leo XIV as he nears his first anniversary. The article details his slow pace of Curia appointments, his handling of the controversial “Cardinal” Víctor Fernández, his planned encyclical on artificial intelligence, and the delayed move into the Apostolic Palace. It presents his governance as deliberate and traditionalist-leaning but continuous with the “Francis” pontificate, framing the context as one of “anticipation” for his personal stamp on the conciliar sect’s direction.
This analysis exposes the profound theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the article’s narrative. It treats the occupier of the Vatican as a legitimate pontiff and his actions as matters of ecclesiastical governance, thereby whitewashing the catastrophic reality: the See of Peter is vacant, occupied by a series of Modernist antipopes beginning with Angelo Roncalli (“John XXIII”). The article’s focus on appointments, encyclicals, and residence is a diversion from the central, damning truth: the post-1958 hierarchy teaches and promotes heresies condemned by the infallible Magisterium, thereby forfeiting all jurisdiction ipso facto. Its “anticipation” is the expectation of further apostasy packaged in traditionalist veneer.
Naturalistic Humanism Masquerading as Papal Governance
The article’s core assumption is that the “pontificate” of Leo XIV is a legitimate exercise of the Petrine ministry. This is a fatal error. According to the unchanging doctrine of the Church, a manifest heretic cannot be a member of the Church, and therefore cannot be its head. St. Robert Bellarmine, cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, states unequivocally: “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 actions of “Leo XIV” and his “predecessor” “Francis” constitute manifest heresy.
The article notes Leo’s “more traditional approach to protocol and liturgy” and his reversal of “certain decisions by Pope Francis regarding finances.” These are mere external adjustments within the conciliar sect’s paramasonic structure. They do not touch the doctrinal revolution. The Syllabus of Errors, promulgated by Bl. Pius IX, condemns the very principles upon which the post-conciliar Church is built:
* Error #15: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” This is the foundation of “religious liberty” Vatican II.
* Error #77: “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.” This is the core of the “separation of Church and State” doctrine.
* Error #55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.”
Leo XIV’s entire “pontificate” operates within this condemned framework. His governance, his planned encyclical on AI, his liturgical preferences—all are exercises in managing a humanistic, naturalistic project that has definitively repudiated the Social Kingship of Christ. Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas, which the article’s subject implicitly contradicts, teaches that Christ’s reign “encompasses all men” and that “states… have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The conciliar sect, however, has embraced the Syllabus errors, promoting indifferentism and the subordination of the Church to the secular state. Leo XIV’s failure to repudiate Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae and his continuation of its policies confirm his membership in this apostate body.
The Fernández Exception: A Litmus Test of Apostasy
The article highlights the delicate situation of “Cardinal” Víctor Fernández, “prefect of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.” Fernández’s promulgation of “guidelines for non-liturgical blessings for same-sex couples in December 2023” is noted as “one of the most contested decisions of the last pontificate.” The article speculates on whether Leo will retain him, framing it as a political calculation: “it would likely be seen as a criticism of Francis’ judgment.”
This is a staggering omission of the supernatural order. Fernández’s action is not a “controversial decision”; it is formal heresy and blasphemy. It sanctions the blessing of mortal sin—the homosexual act—thereby directly opposing:
1. Scripture: “Do not be deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, … nor sodomites… shall possess the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).
2. The unchangeable moral law, defined by the Church: “Homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2357), a teaching rooted in natural law and divine revelation.
3. The very purpose of the “Doctrine of the Faith” dicastery: to guard and propagate Catholic truth.
By retaining Fernández, “Pope” Leo XIV becomes complicit in this public corruption of faith and morals. His “deliberate and patient governing style” is revealed not as prudence, but as the calculated preservation of a modernist equilibrium. The “anticipation” is for a managed continuation of the revolution, not its reversal. This silence is the gravest accusation. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, condemned the notion that “the Church… ought to tolerate the errors of philosophy, leaving it to correct itself” (Proposition #11). The Leo XIV “papacy” tolerates, indeed institutionalizes, the errors of Modernism.
Artificial Intelligence and the Idolatry of Progress
The article devotes significant space to Leo XIV’s planned encyclical on artificial intelligence, comparing it to Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. This comparison is sacrilegious. Rerum Novarum addressed social questions within the framework of Catholic social teaching, grounded in the natural law and the supernatural destiny of man. An encyclical on AI from an antipope will, by necessity, operate within the humanistic, technocratic paradigm of the conciliar sect.
The focus on AI as a “global moral authority” issue is a symptom of the post-conciliar Church’s apostasy. It replaces the supernatural goal of the salvation of souls with the naturalistic management of societal problems. The “bewilderment and anxiety” over AI is a crisis of faith in God’s providence, not a primary pastoral concern. Pius X, in Lamentabili, condemned the proposition that “Christian doctrine was initially Jewish, but through gradual development, it became first Pauline, then Johannine, and finally Greek and universal” (Proposition #60). The Leo XIV approach to AI will embody this evolutionary, relativistic principle: adapting “the faith” to “the demands of our times and the progress of the sciences” (Syllabus Error #13), a condemned error.
The article notes Leo’s concern that priests should write their own homilies, not outsource to AI. This is a trivial, secondary issue compared to the primary duty of a pope: to define and defend the faith. A legitimate pope would be defining the faith against the heresies of the “Francis” era, not issuing guidelines on homily authorship. The very discussion of AI as a papal priority demonstrates the complete inversion of the hierarchy of truths. The supernatural end of man is ignored; the management of material creation is elevated.
The Apostasy of Liturgical “Tradition” and the Empty Symbolism of the Palace
The article praises Leo’s “more traditional approach to protocol and liturgy” and his move to the Apostolic Palace as a restoration of tradition. This is a deadly deception. The “traditional” liturgical practices of the conciliar sect, even if using the 1962 Missal, are still the product of the Modernist revolution. The 1962 Missal is a corrupted edition of the Roman Rite, promulgated by John XXIII, a manifest heretic. Its use, outside of a context of total doctrinal repudiation of Vatican II, is a sacrilegious simulation.
The Apostolic Palace itself is a symbol of the worldliness of the post-Conciliar Church. Pius IX, in his Allocution Maxima quidem (cited in the Syllabus), condemned the error that “the Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect” (Error #24). The conciliar popes have embraced this error, reducing the Church to a purely spiritual, invisible entity, while the “traditional” trappings of the palace are mere aesthetic counter-revolution. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, insisted that Christ’s kingship demands that “all relations in the state be ordered on the basis of God’s commandments and Christian principles.” The Leo XIV “papacy” does not demand this; it negotiates with secular powers and promotes religious indifferentism.
The article mentions the removal of “pigeon droppings” and modifications for the Pope to “cook for himself.” This is the reductio ad absurdum of the narrative: the “spiritual father of Christendom” is reduced to a domestic figure. Where is the public, authoritative condemnation of the errors of the “Francis” era? Where is the excommunication of “Cardinal” Fernández and his like? Where is the restoration of the Syllabus of Errors and Lamentabili Sane Exitu as the governing documents of the “Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith”? The silence is deafening and damning.
The Symptomatic Silence on the Central Crisis
The most glaring omission in the entire article is any mention of the doctrinal crisis, the apostasy of Vatican II, or the necessity of a return to the integral faith of pre-1958 Catholicism. The article discusses appointments, AI, and residences as if the Church were a mere human institution experiencing a change in management style.
This is the hallmark of Modernism: treating supernatural realities as human problems. The “False Fatima Apparitions” file correctly identifies a diversion “from the main danger: modernist apostasy within the Church since the beginning of the 20th century.” The article about “Pope Leo XIV” is itself a perfect example of this diversion. It focuses on the “external threats” (AI, liturgical aesthetics, personnel) while omitting the “internal danger”: the systematic destruction of the faith by the very men who occupy the Vatican.
The article’s tone is one of bureaucratic curiosity. It quotes no one from the “pre-1958” Magisterium. It makes no reference to the doctrines of the Immaculate Heart, the Social Kingship of Christ, or the absolute necessity of the state professing the Catholic faith. It is a document of the “conciliar sect,” reporting on its own management, utterly divorced from the “immutable Tradition” it claims to serve.
Conclusion
The “anticipation” described in the article is not for a restoration of Catholic truth, but for the next phase of the Modernist revolution under a more discreet mask. “Pope Leo XIV” is not a reforming pope; he is the current administrator of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15). His actions, or lack thereof, regarding Fernández prove his allegiance to the same apostasy as “Francis.” His focus on AI and traditional trappings is the idolatry of “progress” and “aesthetics” replacing the worship of God and the defense of His law. The article is a propaganda piece for the ongoing deception, presenting the occupation of the Vatican as a normal succession, thereby leading souls to damnation by omission of the essential truth: the See is vacant, the faith is under siege, and submission to the post-conciliar hierarchy is formal cooperation with apostasy.
The only “next move” that would signify a return to Catholic sanity would be the public, solemn recantation of all errors of Vatican II and the “magisterium” of the antipopes, followed by the resignation of the entire occupier hierarchy and the convening of a legitimate, pre-Conciliar council. Until then, every action of “Pope Leo XIV” is a further step in the consolidation of the “neo-church,” the “paramasonic structure” that has replaced the Catholic Church. The faithful are called not to “anticipate” his moves, but to reject them and cleave to the eternal truths of the pre-1958 Magisterium, which alone can save souls in these times of “strong delusion” (2 Thessalonians 2:11).
Source:
Vatican Awaits Pope Leo’s Next Moves (ncregister.com)
Date: 13.03.2026