Vatican News portal reports that on April 21, 2026, the usurper Robert Prevost, styling himself “Pope Leo XIV,” delivered an address to the authorities, civil society, and diplomatic corps of Equatorial Guinea in Malabo. The article presents this event as a pastoral visit aimed at “confirming the faith” and promoting “justice and development.” However, a thorough examination of the content and omissions of this address reveals it to be yet another manifestation of the post-conciliar apostasy, devoid of supernatural substance, saturated with naturalistic humanism, and fundamentally incompatible with the integral Catholic faith. The so-called “pope” speaks of “exclusion,” “human dignity,” and the “common good” while remaining utterly silent on the most fundamental truths of the Faith, the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church, the reality of sin, and the absolute Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ over all nations and individuals. This address is not a confirmation of faith but a dilution of it, a diplomatic exercise in globalist rhetoric that serves the agenda of the conciliar sect rather than the salvation of souls.
The Absence of Supernatural Truth: A Diplomatic Address Without God
The most striking feature of Leo XIV’s address to the Equatorial Guinean authorities is its complete silence on the supernatural order. He speaks of “justice,” “development,” “exclusion,” and “human dignity” – all concepts that, while not inherently evil, are stripped of their Catholic moorings and presented in a purely naturalistic framework. Nowhere does he mention the necessity of baptism for salvation, the reality of original sin, the need for repentance, the existence of hell, or the obligation of all nations to submit to the Kingship of Christ. This is not merely an oversight; it is a deliberate omission that reveals the theological bankruptcy of the conciliar sect.
Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas, unequivocally declared that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.” He further stated that “the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ” and that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). Leo XIV, by contrast, offers a vision of “development” and “justice” that is entirely horizontal, devoid of any reference to the divine law or the supernatural end of man. This is the very essence of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, which reduces religion to a mere social phenomenon and denies the supernatural origin and purpose of the Church.
The Heresy of Indifferentism and the False Concept of “Human Dignity”
Leo XIV’s address is replete with references to “human dignity” and the “common good,” concepts that, when divorced from their Catholic context, become vehicles for the heresy of indifferentism. The so-called “pope” speaks of “upholding human dignity” and “orienting development towards the common good” without ever specifying that true human dignity is found only in the state of sanctifying grace and that the common good is inseparable from the recognition of God’s sovereignty. This is precisely the error condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, which rejects the proposition that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16) and that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion” (Proposition 18).
The conciliar sect’s emphasis on “human dignity” is a smokescreen for its rejection of the Church’s exclusive claim to be the one true religion founded by Christ. By speaking of “human dignity” in the abstract, without reference to the necessity of faith and baptism, Leo XIV implicitly endorses the modernist notion that all religions are equally valid paths to God. This is a direct contradiction of the dogma Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation), which has been taught consistently by the Magisterium from the earliest centuries of the Church. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) declared: “There is indeed one universal Church of the faithful, outside of which no one at all is saved.” Pope Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (1302) reiterated: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
The Cult of Man and the Democratization of the Church
Leo XIV’s address is a textbook example of the “cult of man” that St. Pius X identified as the defining characteristic of Modernism. He speaks of “free and responsible consciences,” “countercurrent politics,” and an “educational pact that gives young people space and trust.” These phrases are not Catholic; they are the language of secular humanism, of the Enlightenment, of the French Revolution. They reflect a vision of man as autonomous, self-determining, and capable of achieving his own salvation through education and political action. This is the very antithesis of the Catholic understanding of man as a fallen creature in need of redemption, dependent on the grace of God and the sacraments of the Church for his salvation.
The so-called “pope” also invokes the spirit of Gaudium et Spes, the conciliar document that marked the Church’s surrender to the modern world. He quotes its opening line: “the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time… are the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ as well.” This document, which was drafted under the influence of modernist theologians such as Karl Rahner and Yves Congar, represents a radical departure from the Church’s traditional teaching on the relationship between the Church and the world. It is a document that, in the words of Archbishop Lefebvre himself, “opened the floodgates to liberalism and relativism.” By invoking Gaudium et Spes, Leo XIV signals his allegiance to the conciliar revolution and his rejection of the Church’s perennial teaching.
The Silence on Sin, Repentance, and the Kingship of Christ
Perhaps the most damning omission in Leo XIV’s address is his complete silence on the reality of sin, the necessity of repentance, and the absolute Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He speaks of “exclusion” as “the new face of social injustice,” but he never identifies the root cause of all injustice: sin. He speaks of “dismantling the obstacles to integral human development,” but he never mentions that the greatest obstacle to human development is the state of mortal sin, which separates man from God and renders him incapable of attaining his true end.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, declared that “Christ reigns in the minds of men, not so much because He possesses a profound intellect and vast knowledge, but rather because He Himself is Truth, and men must draw truth from Him and accept it obediently.” He further stated that “the royal dignity of our Lord surrounds the earthly authority of princes and rulers with a certain religious reverence” and that “rulers and legitimate superiors have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” Leo XIV, by contrast, offers no such reminder. He treats the Equatorial Guinean authorities as if they were autonomous agents, accountable only to “free and responsible consciences” and the “common good,” rather than to the King of Kings and Lord of Lords.
The Exploitation of Natural Resources and the Absence of Catholic Social Teaching
Leo XIV’s address touches on the issue of natural resource exploitation, warning against “speculation” that risks overshadowing “the safeguarding of creation, the rights of local communities, the dignity of labor and the protection of public health.” While these concerns may be legitimate in themselves, they are presented in a purely naturalistic framework, devoid of any reference to the Church’s social teaching as articulated by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum and Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno. The so-called “pope” speaks of “the universal destination of goods,” a concept that, while rooted in Catholic theology, has been distorted by liberation theologians and modernist “social justice” advocates to justify redistributionist policies and the erosion of private property rights.
True Catholic social teaching, as articulated by the pre-conciliar Magisterium, upholds the right to private property as a natural right, while also insisting on the moral obligation to use one’s goods for the common good. Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum declared: “The right to property is from nature, not from man; and the State has the right to control its use in the interests of the public good, but not to absorb it wholly.” Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno further clarified: “The social and economic order must be subordinated to the moral order, and therefore to justice and charity.” Leo XIV’s address, by contrast, offers a vague and sentimental appeal to “solidarity” and the “common good” that is indistinguishable from the rhetoric of secular globalist organizations such as the United Nations.
The Invocation of Augustine Without Catholic Content
Leo XIV invokes Saint Augustine’s distinction between the “city of God” and the “earthly city,” but he does so in a way that strips Augustine’s teaching of its Catholic content. He describes the “city of God” as “characterised by God’s unconditional love” and the “earthly city” as marked by “the proud love of self… and the lust for power and worldly glory that leads to destruction.” While this is not entirely inaccurate, it is a gross oversimplification that ignores Augustine’s central teaching: that the “city of God” is the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation, and that the “earthly city” is the kingdom of Satan, which is destined for eternal damnation.
Augustine did not present these two “cities” as mere philosophical abstractions or ethical ideals; he presented them as concrete historical realities, locked in a cosmic struggle that will culminate in the final victory of Christ and His Church. Leo XIV, by contrast, uses Augustine’s language to promote a vague and sentimental “ethical reflection” that is devoid of any supernatural content. He asks his audience: “which city they wish to serve,” but he never tells them that the only city that leads to eternal salvation is the Catholic Church, and that all other “cities” – including the United Nations, the European Union, and the conciliar sect itself – are part of the “earthly city” that is destined for destruction.
The Echo of Bergoglio and the Continuity of Apostasy
Leo XIV explicitly echoes his predecessor, the apostate Jorge Mario Bergoglio (Francis), quoting his famous phrase: “We also have to say ‘thou shalt not’ to an economy of exclusion and inequality. Such an economy kills.” This phrase, which was first uttered by Bergoglio in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013), has become a rallying cry for the conciar sect’s “preferential option for the poor” and its embrace of liberation theology. By echoing this phrase, Leo XIV demonstrates his continuity with the Bergoglian revolution and his commitment to the conciar agenda of “mercy” without truth, “dialogue” without conversion, and “justice” without repentance.
The so-called “pope” also warns against the misuse of technology for military purposes, stating that “the destiny of humanity risks being tragically compromised without a change of direction in the assumption of political responsibility.” This is a classic example of the conciliar sect’s obsession with “peace” and “dialogue” at the expense of justice and truth. The Church has always taught that war can be just under certain conditions, as articulated by Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, and that the defense of the Faith and the protection of the innocent may sometimes require the use of force. Leo XIV, by contrast, offers a pacifist and sentimental vision of “peace” that is indistinguishable from the rhetoric of secular pacifist organizations.
The Call for “Free and Responsible Consciences” Without the Light of Faith
In his closing remarks, Leo XIV describes Equatorial Guinea as “a young country” capable of forming “free and responsible consciences.” He encourages leaders to support “countercurrent politics” centred on the common good and calls for “the courage of new visions and an educational pact that gives young people space and trust.” These phrases are not Catholic; they are the language of secular liberalism, of the Enlightenment, of the French Revolution. They reflect a vision of man as autonomous, self-determining, and capable of achieving his own salvation through education and political action.
The Church has always taught that the conscience must be formed in accordance with the divine law, as revealed by God and taught by the Magisterium. Pius XII, in his radio message of March 23, 1952, declared: “The conscience is the innermost and most secret nucleus of man. There he retreats with his intellectual faculties into complete solitude, alone with himself or rather, alone with God, whose voice echoes in the conscience, and with himself. There he decides over good or evil. There he becomes aware of the good or the evil of his actions. The conscience is, as it were, the messenger of God, proclaiming His law. It is the advocate of the divine law, not the arbiter of the moral order.” Leo XIV, by contrast, speaks of “free and responsible consciences” as if they were self-sufficient, capable of discerning the good without the light of faith and the guidance of the Church. This is the very essence of the modernist error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, which rejects the proposition that “the Church has no right to require any internal assent from the faithful to the pronouncements issued by the Church” (Proposition 7).
Conclusion: A Diplomatic Exercise in Apostasy
Leo XIV’s address to the Equatorial Guinean authorities is not a pastoral act; it is a diplomatic exercise in apostasy. It is a masterclass in modernist rhetoric, devoid of supernatural substance, saturated with naturalistic humanism, and fundamentally incompatible with the integral Catholic faith. The so-called “pope” speaks of “justice,” “development,” “exclusion,” and “human dignity” while remaining utterly silent on the most fundamental truths of the Faith. He invokes Augustine without Catholic content, echoes Bergoglio without theological depth, and promotes a vision of man and society that is indistinguishable from secular liberalism.
This address is yet another confirmation that the conciar sect is not the Catholic Church. It is a counterfeit institution, a “synagogue of Satan” (Revelation 2:9), which has abandoned the mission entrusted to it by Christ and has embraced the spirit of the world. The true Church, the Church of all ages, endures in the faithful who profess the integral Catholic faith and are led by bishops with valid sacraments and validly ordained priests. To them, we say: State et non cedere (Stand and do not yield). The conciar sect may occupy the Vatican, but it does not possess the Faith. The gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18), and the truth shall ultimately triumph over error.
“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.” — Pius XI, Quas Primas
Source:
Pope calls Equatorial Guinea’s leaders to reflect on justice and development (vaticannews.va)
Date: 21.04.2026