EWTN News reports on the visit of the antipope Leo XIV to Algeria (April 13–15, 2026), where he met with President Abdelmadjid Tebboune and celebrated the Novus Ordo “Mass” amidst a Protestant community “encouraged” by his presence. The article details the Algerian government’s closure of nearly 50 Protestant evangelical churches over the past decade, ostensibly for licensing and safety violations, but in reality to curb the spread of Christianity. Kelsey Zorzi of Alliance Defending Freedom is quoted describing the government’s “pretextual and manipulative tactics,” while the article presents Leo XIV’s visit as a positive gesture for religious freedom. However, this entire narrative is a masterclass in conciliar deception: a usurper on Peter’s throne parades as a defender of the faith while the very structures he represents have systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine on the Church’s exclusive rights, the duty of Catholic states, and the true meaning of religious liberty. The article’s silence on the theological bankruptcy of the conciliar sect’s position — and its implicit endorsement of a “dialogue” that treats Protestantism as a legitimate partner — reveals the rot at the heart of post-conciliarism.
The Diplomacy of Apostasy: Leo XIV as “Peacemaker” in a Land of Martyrs
The article presents Leo XIV’s visit to Algeria as a triumph of sorts: he “raised the issue” of Protestant church closures, he planted “an olive tree as a symbol of peace,” and the Protestant community was “highly positive” about his presence. This is the conciliar playbook in its purest form. The antipope travels to a land sanctified by the blood of the martyrs and the genius of St. Augustine — a land where the Catholic Church once flourished before the Islamic conquests — and what does he do? He does not preach the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church. He does not invoke the social reign of Christ the King over Algeria. He does not remind the Algerian government, in the spirit of Pius XI’s Quas Primas, that “not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” Instead, he plants an olive tree. He shakes hands with a Muslim president. He presides over a “Mass” in which the “archbishop of Algiers pointed out that the Christian community in Algeria is comprised of several denominations” and “specified that several Protestant church leaders were present.”
Let us be clear about what this means. The conciliar sect, having abandoned the dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Outside the Church there is no salvation) and the teaching of Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors that the Catholic religion must be the sole religion of the state, now treats Protestant “churches” as legitimate Christian communities whose leaders are worthy of sitting in honor at the antipope’s liturgy. This is not diplomacy; it is apostasy. It is the logical fruit of Vatican II’s Unitatis Redintegratio and Dignitatis Humanae, documents that Pius IX would have condemned as heresies numbered among the 80 errors of the Syllabus. Error 77 condemned the proposition that “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.” Error 79 condemned the idea that “the civil liberty of every form of worship… conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism.” Leo XIV’s visit is the living embodiment of these condemned errors.
The Silence on Catholic Doctrine: What the Article Dares Not Say
The article, sourced from EWTN — itself a conciliar institution that, while using the trappings of Catholicism, operates within the framework of the post-conciliar sect — is meticulously silent on the doctrinal issues at stake. It reports the closure of Protestant churches as a “religious freedom” issue, framing the matter in the language of natural rights and international law. Kelsey Zorzi speaks of “pretextual and manipulative tactics,” of “building code violations,” of licensing applications “refused to this day.” All of this may be factually accurate, but it is theologically vacuous.
The article does not ask the only question that matters from the perspective of integral Catholic faith: What is the duty of a Catholic state toward religion? The answer, given by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and by Pius XI in Quas Primas, is unambiguous: the state must recognize the Catholic Church as the one true Church of Christ, must profess the Catholic faith, and must subordinate its laws to the law of God. Algeria is not a Catholic state; it is an Islamic republic. But the article’s framing implicitly accepts the modernist premise that all religions are equal before the state, that the government’s role is to manage “religious communities” as interest groups, and that the closure of Protestant churches is an injustice because it violates “religious freedom” — a concept condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (Errors 77-79) and by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos.
The article does not mention that Protestantism is a heresy. It does not mention that the “evangelical churches” in Algeria are not churches in the Catholic sense but sects founded on the errors of Luther and Calvin. It does not mention that the true solution for Algeria is not the “freedom” of Protestant worship but the conversion of the nation to the Catholic Church and the establishment of the social reign of Christ the King. This silence is not accidental; it is the conciliar sect’s systematic suppression of Catholic truth in favor of the ecumenical lie.
The “Mass” of the Antipope: Sacrilege in the Land of Augustine
The article notes that Leo XIV “said Mass” in Algiers and that the “archbishop of Algiers” presided over a liturgy that acknowledged the presence of Protestant leaders. Let us consider what this “Mass” is. The Novus Ordo Missae, promulgated by Paul VI in 1969, is a Protestantized liturgy that, as even some conciliar cardinals have admitted, represents a radical break with the theology of the Sacrifice of the Mass. The traditional Roman Mass — the Mass of St. Pius V, the Mass that St. Augustine himself would have recognized — is a propitiatory sacrifice offered to God for the living and the dead. The Novus Ordo is, in the words of Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci in their famous 1969 Brief Critical Study, “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass.” It is a communal meal, a memorial, a “celebration” — not a sacrifice.
When Leo XIV “says Mass” in the presence of Protestant leaders, he is not offering the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; he is presiding over a rite that Protestants themselves have acknowledged as acceptable to their theology. This is not the Catholic faith. This is syncretism. This is the “abomination of desolation” spoken of by Our Lord (Matt. 24:15). The article’s casual reference to this event — without any critical examination of what the Novus Ordo is or what it represents — is a testament to the conciliar sect’s success in normalizing sacrilege.
The Myth of “Religious Freedom” and the Conciliar Betrayal
The entire article is framed around the concept of “religious freedom” — a concept that, in the conciliar sense, is a heresy. The Catholic Church has always taught that the state has a duty to suppress public false worship, not because it denies the individual’s natural right to follow his conscience (which the Church also teaches), but because the state is bound to profess and protect the true religion. As Pius IX taught in the Syllabus (Error 77), it is not true that “in the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State.” As Leo XIII taught in Libertas, the state may tolerate false religions for the sake of a greater good, but it may never grant them equal rights with the true religion.
The article’s framing — presenting the closure of Protestant churches as a violation of “religious freedom” — accepts the conciliar premise that all religions have an equal right to public exercise. This is the teaching of Dignitatis Humanae, a document that directly contradicts the unanimous teaching of the pre-conciliar Magisterium. The article does not challenge this premise. It does not ask whether the Algerian government, as an Islamic state, has any obligation to permit Christian worship at all (the answer, in strict Catholic teaching, is that it does not, though tolerance may be prudent). It does not ask whether the “evangelical churches” have any right to exist in a Catholic understanding of the term. It simply accepts the modernist framework and reports within it.
The Protestant Community’s “Encouragement”: A Sign of Spiritual Blindness
The article quotes Zorzi as saying that the Protestant community in Algeria is “very encouraged” by Leo XIV’s visit and “hoping that this might be the thing that leads to change.” This is perhaps the most revealing line in the entire article. The Protestants of Algeria — themselves victims of Islamic persecution — look to the antipope of Rome as their advocate. They see in Leo XIV a defender of their “religious freedom.” They do not see that the very system he represents has abandoned the Catholic faith that once made North Africa a bastion of Christianity. They do not see that the conciliar sect’s ecumenism has reduced Catholicism to one “denomination” among many, that the Novus Ordo “Mass” is a Protestantized rite, that the antipope’s “dialogue” with Islam is not the preaching of the Gospel but the diplomacy of surrender.
This is the fruit of the conciliar revolution: a world in which Protestants look to the antipope for protection, in which Muslims receive him with diplomatic courtesy, and in which the true Catholic faith — the faith of St. Augustine, the faith of the martyrs, the faith of the Syllabus of Errors and Quas Primas — is nowhere to be found. The Protestants of Algeria are “encouraged” by a man who cannot give them the true Mass, who cannot absolve their sins, who cannot offer them the Catholic faith. They are encouraged by a shadow, a simulacrum, a persona dressed in the vestments of Peter but empty of his authority and his faith.
Conclusion: The Triumph of the Conciliar Lie
This article, in its banality and its silence, is a perfect specimen of conciliar journalism. It reports facts — church closures, diplomatic meetings, olive trees planted — without ever penetrating to the theological reality beneath the surface. It presents Leo XIV as a “success” without asking what success means for a man who is not the Pope. It presents “religious freedom” as an unqualified good without examining the Catholic doctrine on the state’s duty to Christ. It presents Protestant “churches” as legitimate Christian communities without mentioning that they are heretical sects. And it presents the Novus Ordo “Mass” as the Catholic liturgy without acknowledging that it is a rupture with two millennia of Catholic worship.
The truth is this: Leo XIV’s visit to Algeria is not a victory for Christianity. It is a diplomatic exercise by a paramasonic structure that has abandoned the faith. The Protestants of Algeria deserve better than the encouragement of an antipope. They deserve the Catholic faith — the faith that St. Augustine preached in Hippo, the faith that the Syllabus of Errors defended, the faith that Quas Primas> proclaimed over all nations. Until that faith is preached — not as one option among many, but as the sole means of salvation — there will be no true “change” in Algeria or anywhere else. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. Outside the Church, there is no salvation. And outside the true Mass, there is no sacrifice. These are the truths that Leo XIV cannot speak, because he is not the Pope, and the conciliar sect is not the Church.
[The full article content as presented above, formatted in HTML]
Source:
Algerian Christians ‘encouraged’ by Pope Leo’s visit after church closures (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 15.04.2026