The Conciliar Sect’s Assault on Catholic Hierarchy and Sacramental Grace
The cited article reports that the antipope calling himself Leo XIV, in a general audience on March 18, 2026, expounded upon chapter 2 of the conciliar document Lumen Gentium. He proclaimed that “each baptized person is an active agent of evangelization,” founded upon the so-called “sensus fidei” (sense of the faith) of the “entire people of God.” This teaching represents a catastrophic rupture with the unchanging faith of the Catholic Church, a deliberate poisoning of the faithful with Modernist errors solemnly condemned by St. Pius X, and a direct assault on the hierarchical, sacramental, and supernatural nature of the Church founded by Christ.
1. The “Common Priesthood” Heresy: A Direct Contradiction of Trent
The article states that Leo XIV teaches the “common priesthood of the faithful” arising from baptism and confirmation, quoting Lumen Gentium. This is a fundamental error. The Council of Trent, in its decree on the Sacrament of Orders (Session 23, Chapter 2), dogmatically defined the essential distinction between the hierarchical (ministerial) priesthood and the “common priesthood” of the faithful:
> “…the other [priesthood] is the common priesthood of the faithful, which is also called the royal priesthood… For not all the faithful are invested with the sacerdotal function… For the Lord Jesus… chose… from among the rest of His disciples… twelve… that they might be His witnesses… and that He might send them to preach the kingdom of God and to heal… And He gave them power… to cleanse the lepers, to raise the dead… Moreover, in the Church… there is a visible and external priesthood… and an invisible and internal… But the former is so necessary in the Church that without it there would be no spiritual food… For the people… have not the power to offer the sacrifice… nor to bind and loose… but these things belong to the sacerdotal function.”
Trent anathematized anyone who would say the contrary (Canon 2). Leo XIV’s teaching that the baptized are “more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith… as true witnesses of Christ” in a manner implying an autonomous prophetic office directly contradicts this. The duty to spread the faith is an obligation of all Christians, but it is *always* subordinate to and dependent upon the hierarchical magisterium and the sacramental grace conferred by validly ordained priests. The article’s emphasis on the “active agent” language, divorced from the necessary context of obedience to legitimate pastors (which the conciliar sect lacks), fosters a democratized, Protestant-style “priesthood of all believers” that destroys ecclesial order.
2. The “Sensus Fidei” as a Modernist Tool to Undermine the Magisterium
Leo XIV’s central argument hinges on the “sensus fidei” and “consensus of the faithful” as a guarantee against error. This is the very heart of the Modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in the decree *Lamentabili sane exitu* and his encyclical *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*. Proposition 6 of *Lamentabili* states: “The Church listening cooperates in such a way with the Church teaching in defining truths of faith, that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening.” This is precisely the doctrine of the “sensus fidei” as explicated in Lumen Gentium 12 and repeated by Leo XIV. Pius X condemned it as heretical.
Furthermore, Proposition 7 declares: “The Church, in condemning errors, has no right to require any internal assent from the faithful to the pronouncements issued by the Church.” The “sensus fidei” theory, by positing an autonomous “sense of faith” in the collective, implicitly rejects the *obsequium religiosum* (religious submission of will and intellect) due to the authentic Magisterium. It places the subjective “consensus” of the people above the objective teaching authority, a recipe for doctrinal anarchy. Pius IX’s *Syllabus of Errors* condemned the notion that “the Church has not the power of defining dogmatically that the religion of the Catholic Church is the only true religion” (Error 21) and that “the obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church” (Error 22), which is the logical conclusion of the “sensus fidei” elevated above the Magisterium.
The article’s silence on the *necessary* role of the hierarchical magisterium as the authentic interpreter of Revelation is deafening. It promotes the conciliar sect’s error that the “People of God” is a self-interpreting entity, a notion that finds no support in the 1917 Code of Canon Law or in the perennial teaching of the Church. As Pope Pius XI taught in *Quas Primas*, the kingdom of Christ is administered through the Church with a proper hierarchical structure: “For the Church… intends for all people of the whole world… the Church, this Kingdom of Christ on earth… the one dispenser of salvation.” The “dispenser” is the hierarchical Church, not a diffuse “sense of the faithful.”
3. Charisms and “Associations”: The Protestant and Masonic Infiltration of Ecclesiology
Leo XIV extols the “charismatic vitality” of consecrated life and “ecclesial associations” as manifestations of the Spirit’s gifts. This is a perversion of Catholic doctrine on charisms. True charisms are always ordered to the good of the Church and subject to the discernment and authority of the legitimate hierarchy (1 Cor 12:4-11, 1 Thess 5:19-21). The post-conciliar explosion of autonomous movements and “charismatic” groups, often operating with minimal hierarchical control, is a sign of the apostasy foretold by St. Pius X. He warned in *Pascendi* that Modernists would “reform” the Church by emphasizing “the part which belongs to the laity” and promoting “the so-called ‘democratic’ constitution of the Church.”
The article’s praise for “different forms of ecclesial associations” echoes the conciliar sect’s embrace of a panoply of groups, many with doctrinal errors or Masonic influences, which act as parallel structures undermining episcopal authority. This is the natural outcome of the “sensus fidei” error: if the “People of God” collectively possess a supernatural sense, then any group within it can claim a direct guidance of the Spirit, independent of the Roman Pontiff and bishops. This is the road to schism and heresy, the very opposite of the Catholic principle of unity.
4. The Omission of the Supernatural: The Mark of Naturalistic Modernism
The most damning evidence of the article’s apostasy is its complete silence on the *supernatural* means of salvation and the *supernatural* end of the Church. Leo XIV speaks of “evangelization,” “witness,” “renewal,” and “building up” in purely natural, sociological, and organizational terms. There is not a single mention of:
* The **Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass** as the central act of worship and the primary source of grace.
* The ** Sacraments** as necessary means of justification and sanctification, especially Baptism (which he mentions only as a gateway to “obligation”) and Confirmation.
* The **state of grace** and the **final judgment**.
* The **absolute necessity of the Catholic Church** for salvation (*Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus*).
* The **social reign of Christ the King** over individuals, families, and states, as defined by Pope Pius XI in *Quas Primas*.
This omission is not accidental; it is the very essence of the Modernist and conciliar naturalism. As Pius IX condemned in the *Syllabus* (Errors 56-64), the Modernist rejects the divine sanction of moral law and reduces religion to a natural human experience. Leo XIV’s speech is a masterpiece of this naturalism: the Church is a “communion” and a “people” engaged in a “mission,” but the mission is stripped of its supernatural content—the salvation of souls from eternal damnation and the glory of God. It is a social work, a human project of “witness” and “renewal,” utterly Pelagian in its implications.
5. The Heresy of “Each Baptized Person as an Active Agent”: Autonomy vs. Obedience
The headline thesis, “each baptized person is an active agent of evangelization,” when separated from the strict framework of canonical obedience and doctrinal purity, is a license for lay autonomy and doctrinal chaos. It contradicts the clear teaching of the Church that the deposit of faith is guarded and authentically interpreted by the hierarchical magisterium alone. Pope Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, insisted on the duty of rulers and individuals to publicly obey Christ the King, but this obedience is to the **Church** as the teacher and lawgiver: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ… For the Church… demands for itself… full freedom and independence from secular authority… it cannot depend on anyone’s will.”
Leo XIV’s statement, by making every individual an autonomous “agent,” implicitly denies the Church’s right to define doctrine and discipline for the faithful. It is the logical extension of the conciliar error of the “common priesthood” and the “sensus fidei,” paving the way for the chaos of heterodox theologians, lay preachers, and doctrinal rebels who have plagued the conciliar sect since its inception. It is the antithesis of the Catholic principle of authority, where the faithful are “obliged to spread and defend the faith” *in communion with and under the direction of* their legitimate pastors.
Conclusion: A Systematic Rejection of Catholic Doctrine
The teaching attributed to Leo XIV is not a benign emphasis on lay involvement. It is a comprehensive system of errors:
1. It **denies the hierarchical, sacramental, and supernatural constitution** of the Church defined by Trent and the constant Magisterium.
2. It **promotes the condemned Modernist error** of the “sensus fidei” as an autonomous norm alongside or above the hierarchical magisterium.
3. It **fosters lay autonomy and charismatic anarchy**, destroying ecclesial unity and discipline.
4. It **reduces the Church’s mission to a naturalistic, sociological project**, omitting the essential supernatural ends of worship, sanctification, and salvation.
5. It **directly contradicts** the dogmatic teaching on the unique sacerdotal role of the validly ordained priesthood and the necessary subordination of the laity.
This is the theology of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place. It is the language of the conciliar sect, which has systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine from within. The only “active agent of evangelization” in the true sense is the **hierarchical Catholic Church**, armed with the **sacraments** and teaching with **authority** derived from Christ alone. Every baptized person is *obliged* to cooperate with this mission, but always in a state of grace and in submission to the legitimate pastors—a condition the conciliar sect and its antipopes cannot fulfill.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV: ‘Each baptized person is an active agent of evangelization’ (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 18.03.2026