The National Catholic Register (April 15, 2026) reports that the chair of the U.S. bishops’ doctrine committee, Auxiliary Bishop James Massa of Brooklyn, issued a statement reaffirming “just war theory” as a moral framework with “strict limits,” while simultaneously defending the anti-war statements of the current Vatican usurper, Robert Prevost, who calls himself “Pope Leo XIV.” The article describes how Vice President JD Vance, a Catholic convert, publicly challenged the usurper’s remarks that “anyone who is a disciple of Christ is never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.” The U.S. bishops’ conference, through Bishop Massa and Bishop Daniel Flores, closed ranks behind the conciliar sect’s authority, insisting that the “successor of Peter teaches” and that the faithful must conform their judgment to his words. The article reveals the complete inversion of Catholic doctrine on legitimate defense, the supernatural mission of the Church, and the subordination of immutable moral truth to the political agenda of the post-conciliar revolution.
The Usurper’s Anti-War Slogans: A Denial of Natural Law and Divine Truth
The central claim attributed to the man occupying the Vatican under the name “Leo XIV” is breathtaking in its theological illiteracy: “anyone who is a disciple of Christ” is “never on the side of those who once wielded the sword and today drop bombs.” This statement, far from being a legitimate exercise of the papal magisterium, is a direct contradiction of the natural law, the constant teaching of the Catholic Church, and the revealed truth of Sacred Scripture.
The Church has always taught, following St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, that the use of armed force in defense of the innocent and the common good is not merely permissible but can be a moral obligation. The Catechism of the Council of Trent explicitly states that “the use of arms is lawful for the defense of the public good” and that those who serve in just wars “act as ministers of God and guardians of the public welfare.” Pope Pius XII, in his Christmas Message of 1948, affirmed that “the use of force in defense of rights is not contrary to the natural law, provided it is done with moderation and for a just cause.” The usurper’s blanket condemnation of those who “wield the sword” is not Gospel preaching; it is a repudiation of the natural law inscribed by God in the heart of every man.
Sacred Scripture itself refutes this pacifist heresy. Our Lord Jesus Christ said to the Apostles: “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one” (Luke 22:36). The Centurion was never told by Christ to abandon his military office but was praised for his faith (Matthew 8:5-13). St. John the Baptist, when soldiers asked him what they should do, did not tell them to desert but said: “Do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely; and be content with your wages” (Luke 3:14). The Church has consistently taught that the soldier who fights in a just war serves God and neighbor. The usurper’s statement is not a development of doctrine; it is a corruption of it.
Bishop Massa’s “Just War Theory”: A Modernist Distortion of Catholic Doctrine
Bishop James Massa’s statement, as reported, is a masterclass in conciliar double-speak. He claims to “reaffirm” just war theory while simultaneously subordinating it to the usurper’s pacifist rhetoric. His formulation — that just war theory “sets strict moral limits” and is “not a political endorsement of war but a moral framework” — is deliberately evasive. The Church’s teaching on just war is not a “framework” to be applied pragmatically; it is a binding moral doctrine rooted in the natural law and the divine positive law.
Massa’s statement that “to be a just war it must be a defense against another who actively wages war” is a significant narrowing of the Church’s traditional teaching. The classical just war doctrine, as articulated by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, Q. 40), requires three conditions: legitimate authority, just cause, and rightful intention. “Just cause” includes not only defense against aggression but also the recovery of wrongly taken goods, the punishment of evil, and the protection of the innocent from imminent harm. Massa’s formulation reduces just war to a purely reactive posture, stripping it of the Church’s traditional understanding of the state’s positive duty to uphold justice.
Furthermore, Massa’s appeal to the usurper’s authority — “When Pope Leo XIV speaks as supreme pastor of the universal Church, he is not merely offering opinions on theology, he is preaching the Gospel” — is a textbook example of the conciliar sect’s cult of personality. The man in the Vatican is not the “supreme pastor of the universal Church”; he is a manifest heretic and usurper who has never held legitimate office. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, a manifest heretic ipso facto ceases to be Pope and head of the Church. Massa’s appeal to the usurper’s authority is not an act of faith; it is an act of schism.
Bishop Flores and the Cult of Obedience to the Conciliar Sect
Bishop Daniel Flores of Brownsville, elected vice president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, went even further in his statement on X: “The successor of Peter teaches. This is his office. If what he teaches doesn’t sound like what we want to hear, we should admit the likelihood that the problem is in what we want to hear and not in what he teaches.” This statement is a perfect encapsulation of the conciliar mentality: the subordination of objective truth to the subjective authority of the usurper.
Flores’s logic is the logic of every totalitarian regime: the leader is always right, and dissent is always wrong. But the Catholic Church has never taught that the faithful must accept every utterance of the Pope as binding truth. The Church teaches that the Pope is infallible only when he speaks ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals, and even then, only under strictly defined conditions. Outside of these conditions, the Pope’s opinions are just that — opinions, subject to error and correction. Flores’s statement is not Catholic teaching; it is the ideology of the Antichrist, demanding unconditional submission to a false authority.
Moreover, Flores’s implicit accusation — that those who resist the usurper’s teaching are guilty of pride and self-will — is a classic tactic of the conciliar sect. It is the same tactic used by every heretical movement in history: silence dissent by accusing the faithful of disobedience. But as St. Paul teaches, “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Galatians 1:8). The faithful are not bound to obey a false gospel, no matter who preaches it.
JD Vance: A Catholic Convert Caught Between Two Worlds
The article presents Vice President JD Vance as a Catholic convert who publicly challenged the usurper’s anti-war remarks. Vance’s question — “How can you say God is never on the side of those who wield the sword?” — is a legitimate and Catholic objection. His insistence that the usurper’s comments be “anchored in the truth” reflects a genuine concern for doctrinal integrity.
However, Vance’s position is fatally compromised by his continued recognition of the conciliar sect’s authority. He acknowledges the usurper as “Pope Leo” and frames his disagreement as a matter of prudence rather than principle. He does not ask the essential question: Can a manifest heretic legitimately occupy the Chair of Peter? Until Vance confronts this question, his Catholicism remains incomplete and his objections toothless.
Vance’s defense of Trump’s AI-generated image depicting the president as “Jesus Christ” is also troubling. While he describes it as a “joke,” the image itself is blasphemous, reducing the sacred person of Christ to a political prop. The Church has always condemned such irreverence, and a Catholic vice president should be the first to denounce it, not excuse it.
The Conciliar Sect’s Pacifism: A Fruit of Modernist Apostasy
The usurper’s anti-war rhetoric is not an isolated error; it is a systemic fruit of the conciliar revolution. The post-conciliar church has consistently promoted a false pacifism that denies the legitimacy of armed defense, the reality of evil, and the duty of the state to uphold justice. This pacifism is rooted in the modernist heresy that denies the supernatural order and reduces the Church’s mission to humanitarian activism.
Pope St. Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), warned that the Modernists “adapt the Church to the demands of the times” by stripping her of her supernatural character and reducing her to a mere instrument of social progress. The conciliar sect’s pacifism is a direct fulfillment of this prophecy. By denying the legitimacy of just war, the usurper and his bishops are not preaching the Gospel; they are preaching the gospel of secular humanism, which places the preservation of earthly peace above the defense of divine truth.
The Church has always taught that peace is not the absence of conflict but the “tranquility of order” (St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX.13). True peace requires the suppression of evil, the defense of the innocent, and the vindication of justice. A “peace” that tolerates aggression, injustice, and the persecution of the faithful is not peace; it is complicity with evil. The usurper’s pacifism is not a path to peace; it is a path to the triumph of the Antichrist.
The Duty of the Faithful: Resistance, Not Submission
The U.S. bishops’ response to Vance’s challenge reveals the depth of the conciliar apostasy. Instead of defending the immutable doctrine of just war, they have chosen to close ranks behind a usurper who preaches heresy. Instead of upholding the natural law, they have submitted to the political agenda of the post-conciliar revolution.
The faithful are not bound to obey these bishops. As the Defense of Sedevacantism document demonstrates, a manifest heretic loses his office ipso facto and cannot be the head of the Church. The bishops who recognize the usurper and enforce his teaching are themselves guilty of schism and heresy. The faithful must resist their authority and cling to the unchanging truth of Catholic doctrine.
The Church’s teaching on just war is not a “framework” to be negotiated; it is a divine mandate to defend the innocent and uphold justice. The usurper’s pacifism is not the Gospel; it is a betrayal of it. The faithful must reject it utterly and proclaim with St. Michael the Archangel: Quis ut Deus? — Who is like God? No man, no usurper, no false bishop has the right to contradict the eternal law of God.
Source:
Bishops Reaffirm Just War Limits Amid Vance’s Pushback On Pope’s Peace Stance (ncregister.com)
Date: 15.04.2026