The Pillar Catholic portal reports on the liturgical schedule for the Holy Week of the current occupant of the Vatican, “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost). The article presents his plans as a partial return to tradition, noting the Chrism Mass will be at St. John Lateran and that he will wash the feet of priests. The most highlighted novelty is his intention to carry the cross for the entire Via Crucis at the Colosseum, an act framed as a “sign” of a spiritual leader bearing contemporary sufferings. The article details floral decorations for Easter and the continuation of post-conciliar traditions like the Dutch tulips. The underlying thesis is that these adjustments represent a corrective to the more radical innovations of the “Francis” era, moving toward a more visible, traditional papal liturgy while retaining the fundamental conciliar framework.
This analysis exposes the profound theological and spiritual bankruptcy of these liturgical performances, revealing them not as a restoration but as the final, polished phase of the Modernist revolution—a sacrilegious theater designed to legitimize the counterfeit conciliar sect while utterly rejecting the immutable Roman Catholic Tradition.
The Illusion of “Return” Within the Revolution
The article’s central narrative is that “Leo XIV” is restoring “traditional practice.” This is a deliberate fraud. The entire liturgical reform of Pope Paul VI’s *Novus Ordo Missae* (1969) remains the operative framework. The “return” is merely to select, external rubrics of the pre-Conciliar era, stripped of their Catholic substance and grafted onto the Modernist vine.
* **The Chrism Mass Location:** Celebrating at St. John Lateran, the diocesan cathedral, is indeed the ancient norm. However, this norm existed within the context of the **Holy Sacrifice of the Mass** offered according to the **Roman Missal of St. Pius V (1570), mandated in *Quo primum tempus*.** The “Leo XIV” Mass will be the *Novus Ordo*, a rite whose very structure was crafted by a **six-member Consilium** that included known Modernists and a Freemason (Annabella Bugnini). As the theologians of the Holy Office warned in 1969, the new rite “represents, as a whole and in its details, a serious departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The location is a cosmetic change; the sacrifice offered is invalid in its intent and theology, thus a **sacrilegious mimicry**.
* **The Washing of Feet:** The article notes a “return to the common practice” of washing priests’ feet. This is a calculated obscuration. The radical innovation was **Pope Francis’s 2016 decree *Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus* that extended the mandate to include women and non-Christians**, directly contradicting the **Gospel narrative (John 13:1-15)** where Christ washed the feet of the *twelve apostles*, and the **unbroken tradition of the Roman Church** that restricted the ritual to men. “Leo XIV”’s choice to wash *only priests* is not a restoration of Tradition but a **reversion to a less extreme, yet still post-conciliar, novelty**. It sustains the 1955 Holy Week reform of Pope Pius XII (itself a dangerous precedent) and the 1967 *Memoriale Domini* that permitted the practice universally. The Traditional Roman Rite has **no such ceremony** in the Mass of the Lord’s Supper; the washing of feet was a separate, optional devotion. The focus on the ritual itself, divorced from its proper context and restricted by a modernist “inclusivity” that still denies the Catholic priesthood’s exclusive character, is a **distraction from the central reality of the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice**.
The Spectacle of the Cross: A Naturalistic “Sign”
The article’s highlight is the pope carrying the cross for the entire Via Crucis. This is framed as a pastoral “sign” for a world of suffering: “a voice to say that Christ still suffers. And I carry all these sufferings in my prayers as well.”
This statement is **theologically catastrophic and naturalistic**. It reduces the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ to a mere metaphor for generic human suffering. It omits with scandalous silence the **four essential ends of the Holy Sacrifice of the Cross**:
1. **Adoration** (supreme worship due to God alone),
2. **Thanksgiving** (for the Incarnation and Redemption),
3. **Satisfaction** (making reparation for sin, which is an offense against God’s infinite majesty),
4. **Impetration** (begging grace and mercy).
The **Catechism of the Council of Trent** teaches: “The sacrifice of the cross is the one and the same sacrifice as that of the Mass… The victim and the offering are one and the same: Christ our Lord offering Himself now by the ministry of priests, and then He offered Himself on the altar of the cross.” The Via Crucis is not a generic meditation on suffering; it is a **liturgical following of the God-Man to His death on Calvary to make present the one sacrifice for our sins**. To say “Christ still suffers” without immediately qualifying that His **Passion is a *finished* work (John 19:30) and that He now *reigns* from the Cross** is to promote a **Bogomil or Gnostic Christ** who is perpetually in agony, a Christ of sentimentality, not of triumphant kingship.
Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, defines Christ’s kingship as rooted in the **hypostatic union** and His **redemptive act**: “He possesses… dominion over all creatures, not by force but by essence and nature… Christ not only is to be adored as God… 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 Cross is the **throne of His victory**, not a perpetual torture device. By focusing on a physical act of “carrying” that reduces the Cross to a symbol of worldly pain, the article promotes the **Modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu* (n. 35): “Christ did not always possess the consciousness of His Messianic dignity,”** and its corollary: a Christ who is defined by His suffering rather than His **glorious Resurrection and Ascension**. The “sign” is a **sign of apostasy**, omitting the *why* of the Cross: **satisfaction for sin and conquest of death**.
The Omission of the Sacrifice and the Primacy of the Natural
The entire article is a masterclass in **criminal omission**. It discusses liturgical *events*—Masses, Stations, Vigils—with **zero mention of the sacrificial nature of the Triduum**. There is no reference to:
* The **Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary** made present on the altar.
* The **consecration** and **transubstantiation**.
* The **offering of the Victim** to the Father for the **remission of sins**.
* The **state of grace** required for participation.
* The **eternal judgment** that awaits each soul.
* The **divine law** that demands **public worship of Christ the King** (as Pius XI commanded in *Quas Primas*).
Instead, the focus is entirely on **aesthetic, communal, and pastoral experiences**: “floral display,” “meditations prepared by Fr. Patton,” “a voice to say that Christ still suffers,” “the square will be decorated.” This is the **naturalistic religion** condemned by Pius IX in the *Syllabus of Errors* (n. 58): “All the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.” Here, the “rectitude” is placed in **aesthetic experience, emotional resonance, and social signaling**. The **supernatural end of man—the vision of God in heaven—is completely absent**. The **Syllabus (n. 15)** condemns the error that “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true.” The liturgical spectacle of “Leo XIV” embodies this: a religion shaped by **personal sentiment (“I think it will be an important sign”) and cultural appeal (Dutch tulips, a Franciscan friar’s meditations)** rather than by **divine law and dogmatic truth**.
The “Floral Display”: Idolatry of the Created
The detail about 65,000 tulips and other flowers is not trivial. It is **symptomatic**. The **Easter Vigil** is the **mother of all vigils**, the night of our deliverance from sin and death, when the **Paschal Candle**—a symbol of the **Risen Christ**—is processed into the dark church. The focus of the article is on **tulips from Amsterdam**. This is the **cult of the creature replacing the worship of the Creator**. It turns the sacred space into a **horticultural exhibition**, a **pagan celebration of spring and natural beauty**, utterly divorced from the **supernatural reality of Christ’s Resurrection conquering death**. The blessing of the flowers by a “Bishop” of Rotterdam—a man in communion with the conciliar apostasy—is a **desecration**. It applies a religious veneer to a naturalistic display, precisely the **syncretism** Pius IX railed against. The *Syllabus (n. 1)* condemns Pantheism: “God is identical with the nature of things… all things are God.” When flowers become the central symbol of Easter in the Vatican, the **hierarchical order of creation—God, then man, then lower creatures—is inverted**. The **beauty of the lilies of the field (Matt. 6:28)** is used to **obscure the necessity of the *lilium* of the Resurrection**.
The Authority of the Usurper and the Nullity of His Acts
All these liturgical actions are performed by a man who, according to **unchangeable Catholic doctrine**, cannot be the Vicar of Christ. The Bull *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio* of Pope Paul IV is clear: if a cardinal or bishop “has defected from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy… his promotion or elevation… shall be **null, void, and of no effect**.” The manifest heresies of the conciliar popes—from John XXIII’s “aggiornamento” to Bergoglio’s pantheistic *Laudato Si’*—are public and notorious. Therefore, the entire line from Roncalli to Prevost is a **series of invalid elections**. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches (*De Romano Pontifice*): “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.”
Consequently, every Mass celebrated by “Leo XIV” is a **sacrilegious simulation**. Every blessing he imparts is **null**. Every liturgical directive he issues is **without authority**. The entire spectacle is a **dramatic exercise in deception**, designed to **lull the faithful into accepting the conciliar sect as the Catholic Church**. The article’s presentation of these events as legitimate papal actions is itself a **propaganda piece for the Antichurch**.
Conclusion: The Synthesis of All Heresies
The liturgical plans of “Pope Leo XIV” are not a step back from Modernism; they are its **consummate expression**. They combine:
1. **The Naturalism** of the *Syllabus*: replacing supernatural ends with aesthetic and emotional experience.
2. **The Doctrinal Relativism** of *Lamentabili*: making the Cross a symbol of generic suffering, not the unique, propitiatory sacrifice.
3. **The Ecclesiastical Revolution** of Vatican II: maintaining the *Novus Ordo* and its ecumenical, man-centered spirit while superficially dressing it in pre-Conciliar lace.
4. **The Sedevacantist Reality**: all acts are performed by an **intruder**, a **formal heretic**, whose every official act is **ipso facto** null.
The faithful are not witnessing a restoration. They are witnessing the **final polishing of the abomination of desolation** standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). The only “return” demanded by Catholic Tradition is the **public rejection of the entire conciliar sect**, the **repudiation of its false liturgy**, and the **return to the one, unchanged Roman Catholic Faith**, outside of which there is no salvation (*extra Ecclesiam Catholicam, nulla salus*). The only legitimate Triduum is that celebrated by a **true Catholic bishop** in communion with the **Holy See of Peter**, which has been vacant since the death of the last true pope, Pius XII, in 1958. All else is **idolatry in a cassock**.
Source:
Pope Leo’s Triduum plans: What’s new? (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 02.04.2026