VaticanNews portal (April 15, 2026) reports on an interview with Archbishop Nicolas Lhernould, President of the North African Conference of Bishops (CERNA) and Archbishop of Tunis, following the apostolic journey of the antipope Leo XIV to Algeria. Lhernould describes the visit as “historic,” emphasizing the “centrality of God,” “fraternity,” “peaceful coexistence,” and the Augustinian concept of *convivium* (“living together”) as a “remedy for peace.” He highlights the Pope’s humility, simplicity, and the “strong impact” of his words on both Christian and Muslim communities. The interview presents the visit as a model for interreligious dialogue and the Church’s mission in a Muslim-majority context, framing it as a continuation of the “positive vision” of his predecessor, the apostate Francis. This entire narrative, however, is a masterclass in modernist apostasy, reducing the supernatural mission of the Church to a naturalistic exercise in interfaith conviviality, utterly devoid of the imperative to preach Christ the King and the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Faith.
The “Centrality of God” Without the Kingship of Christ: A Modernist Oxymoron
The most glaring theological bankruptcy in Archbishop Lhernould’s assessment is his repeated invocation of the “centrality of God” as the “common thread” of Leo XIV’s addresses, from which “peace flows.” This phrase, while sounding pious, is a hallmark of modernist equivocation. It deliberately omits the *specific* God Who is Jesus Christ, the Eternal King, and the *specific* peace that can only be found in His Kingdom. Pope Pius XI, in his encyclical *Quas Primas* (1925), unequivocally declared: “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). The “peace” offered by Leo XIV and Lhernould is not the peace of Christ the King, which demands submission to His divine law and the Church’s authority, but a naturalistic “peaceful coexistence” and “joyful coexistence among people” that is indistinguishable from the most pernicious indifferentism. The Syllabus of Errors (1864) of Pope Pius IX explicitly condemned the proposition that “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Proposition 17) and that “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church” (Proposition 18). By promoting a “fraternity” and “conviviality” with Islam that does not demand their conversion to the Catholic Faith, Leo XIV and Lhernould implicitly deny the necessity of the Church for salvation, a doctrine solemnly defined by the Fourth Lateran Council and the Council of Florence. This is not the “centrality of God” but the centrality of man’s natural desire for social harmony, elevated to a pseudo-religious principle, a direct fruit of the modernist “cult of man” condemned by St. Pius X in *Pascendi Dominici Gregis*.
Convivium Without Conversion: The Abomination of False Fraternity
Archbishop Lhernould places particular emphasis on the Latin word convivium, used by Leo XIV, meaning “living together” and “building of fraternity,” citing a mosaic from Tipasa: “In Christo Deo pax et concordia sit convivio nostro” (“In Christ God, may peace and concord be in our living together”). He explicitly states that this “building of fraternity is very probably also the remedy against everything that leads to the opposite of peace” and that Leo XIV “advances a positive vision of how to build peace” by “drawing from the well of the best in each person, in the conviviality of differences, which, in God, becomes communion.” This is a profound perversion of Catholic teaching. True fraternity, in the Catholic sense, is only possible among those who share the same Faith, the same Sacraments, and the same submission to the authority of the Church. The “fraternity” promoted here is a naturalistic, horizontal “living together” that explicitly bypasses the supernatural necessity of conversion. It is the very essence of the false ecumenism condemned by Pope Pius XI in *Mortalium Animos* (1928), which warned against “a false opinion… that considers all religions to be more or less good and praiseworthy.” The “conviviality of differences” that “becomes communion” without the baptismal regeneration and submission to the Roman Pontiff is not communion but a syncretistic amalgamation, an abomination in the eyes of God. The Church has always taught that “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (*Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus*). This “fraternity” is a direct denial of that dogma, a fruit of the modernist “democratization of the Church” and the “evolution of dogmas” that St. Pius X so vehemently condemned in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu* (1907), particularly the proposition that “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Proposition 58).
The “Augustinian” Mask: Hiding Apostasy Behind a Saint’s Name
The entire narrative of Leo XIV’s visit is framed by his supposed Augustinian identity, coming “in the footsteps of Augustine” and being “a son of Saint Augustine.” This is a classic modernist tactic: using the name and authority of a great Saint to lend credibility to a thoroughly modernist agenda. St. Augustine, the Doctor of Grace, was a fierce defender of Catholic orthodoxy against heresies, a staunch advocate for the necessity of the Church, and a profound theologian of the City of God, which stands in stark opposition to the city of man. His writings on the necessity of grace, the reality of original sin, and the exclusive salvific role of Christ and His Church are a direct antithesis to the naturalistic “fraternity” and “conviviality” promoted by Leo XIV and Lhernould. To invoke Augustine while promoting a vision of “peace” and “coexistence” that explicitly avoids the call to conversion and the recognition of Christ’s Kingship is not merely an error but a blasphemous appropriation of a Saint’s legacy. It is a calculated move to disarm those who might otherwise recognize the modernist rot at the heart of this “apostolic journey.” The “small Church” in Algeria, described by Lhernould as living “coexistence, this fraternity with Muslims… even to the point of a kind of spiritual emulation that means we also easily frequent one another’s places of prayer,” is not a model of Catholic witness but a tragic example of the practical application of the very errors condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. It is a Church that has surrendered its supernatural mission to become a chaplaincy to a naturalistic social experiment.
The “Impact” of Humility and Simplicity: A Charismatic Deception
Lhernould repeatedly emphasizes the “humility and simplicity” of Leo XIV, his “gentleness and meekness,” and the “strong impact” of his words on people. This focus on personal qualities and emotional impact is a hallmark of the modernist “cult of man” and a diversion from the objective content of his message. The true measure of a Pope’s words is not their emotional resonance or the “impression” they leave, but their conformity to the unchanging deposit of Faith. A heretic can be humble, simple, and moving; a prophet of God can be stern, challenging, and unpopular. The “impact” Lhernould describes is precisely the kind of subjective, emotional experience that St. Pius X warned against in *Pascendi*, where he described the modernist’s “faith” as a “feeling” rather than an intellectual assent to revealed truth. The “family moment” and “image of our small Church” that Lhernould cherishes is a sentimentalized vision of a community that has lost its supernatural identity, content to be a “presence” and “witness” in a Muslim-majority country without the audacity to preach the Gospel of conversion. This is not the “strong impact” of the Gospel but the weak echo of a naturalistic humanism that has replaced the supernatural mission of the Church.
Continuity with Apostasy: The “Positive Vision” of Francis
Archbishop Lhernould explicitly states that Leo XIV, “in continuity with his predecessor, Pope Francis, he also advances a positive vision of how to build peace.” This admission of continuity with the apostate Francis is a damning indictment. Francis’s entire pontificate was a relentless assault on Catholic doctrine, from his promotion of religious liberty and false ecumenism to his attacks on the traditional liturgy and moral teaching. To claim continuity with such a figure is to openly declare allegiance to the modernist revolution. The “positive vision” Lhernould refers to is not the positive vision of Christ the King reigning over all nations, but the positive vision of a world united in naturalistic “fraternity” without the necessity of the Catholic Faith. It is the vision of the “Church of the New Advent,” a paramasonic structure that has abandoned its divine mission to become a servant of the world. The “remedy for peace” offered by Leo XIV is not the remedy of the Cross, of repentance, and of submission to the Social Kingship of Christ, but the remedy of dialogue, of “conviviality,” and of a false “communion” that denies the exclusive salvific role of the Catholic Church. This is the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Our Lord (Matthew 24:15), standing in the holy place of Peter’s throne, teaching the nations to worship the god of this world under the guise of “fraternity” and “peace.”
Source:
Archbishop Lhernould: Pope's Algeria visit invited us to fraternity, a remedy for peace (vaticannews.va)
Date: 15.04.2026