The National Catholic Register (April 13, 2026) reports that U.S. President Donald Trump called Pope Leo XIV “weak on crime and terrible for foreign policy” in a social media post on April 12, 2026, prompting responses from various “Catholic” bishops and public figures. The article details reactions from “Bishop” Robert Barron, “Bishop” Michael Burbidge, and others who criticized Trump’s remarks as “disrespectful,” while also noting Trump’s posting of an AI-generated image depicting himself as Jesus Christ. The piece presents the controversy as a clash between political authority and religious leadership, with various “Catholic” voices weighing in on both sides. What this spectacle truly reveals is not merely a diplomatic spat, but the complete theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the post-conciliar structure — a counterfeit church incapable of asserting true spiritual authority, reduced to issuing polite requests for “civility” while its usurper “pope” presides over the systematic destruction of the Faith.
The Usurper’s Throne: No Authority to Command Respect
The entire premise of this controversy rests upon a foundational falsehood: that Robert Prevost, styling himself “Pope Leo XIV,” holds any legitimate authority whatsoever. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, there is no “Pope Leo XIV.” The See of Peter has been vacant since the death of Pope Pius XII in 1958, when the Modernist conspiracy successfully installed Angelo Roncalli — a man whose heterodox views were well-documented — as the usurper “John XXIII.” Every subsequent occupant of the Vatican is an antipope, a pretender to a throne he has no right to occupy.
The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4, is unambiguous: “Every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration by reason of tacit resignation, recognized by the law itself, if the cleric: … 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” As the Defense of Sedevacantism document establishes, citing St. Robert Bellarmine: “The fifth true opinion is that a Pope who is 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.” The post-conciliar occupants have not merely erred in prudential judgments — they have promulgated heresies, approved religious indifferentism, and systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine. They ceased to be popes not by any declaration of men, but by their own manifest defection from the Faith.
Pope Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio confirms this with devastating clarity: “if at any time it shall appear that any Bishop… or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his assumption to the cardinalate or the papacy, has defected from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy: (i) his promotion or elevation… shall be null, void, and of no effect.” The election of Roncalli, Montini, Luciani, Wojtyła, Ratzinger, Bergoglio, and now Prevost — all men tainted by Modernism — was null and void from the outset. There is no “Pope Leo XIV.” There is only Robert Prevost, a Modernist prelate occupying the Vatican, and Trump’s insult is directed at a man who has no more claim to Peter’s authority than any other heretic.
The Conciliar “Bishops”: Servants of the World, Not of Christ
The reactions of the so-called “bishops” in this affair are perhaps the most revealing element of the entire spectacle. “Bishop” Robert Barron — a man whose entire public career has been dedicated to making Catholicism palatable to secular culture — called Trump’s comments “disrespectful” and said the president “owes the pope an apology.” Let us examine this demand in light of Catholic teaching.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught with absolute clarity: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations, both male and female, who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” The Church demands independence from secular authority — not the other way around. Yet here we have a “bishop” demanding that a secular ruler apologize to a Modernist usurper, as though the occupant of the Vatican were the true Vicar of Christ deserving of temporal deference. This is not Catholic ecclesiology; it is the behavior of a courtier seeking favor with power, not a shepherd defending his flock.
Even more telling is Barron’s statement: “It is the pope’s prerogative to articulate Catholic doctrine and the principles that govern the moral life. In regard to the concrete application of those principles, people of goodwill can and do disagree.” This is pure Modernism — the very heresy condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis and in the 65 propositions of Lamentabili Sane Exitu. Proposition 26 states: “The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief.” Barron’s framing reduces Catholic doctrine to abstract “principles” about which “people of goodwill can disagree” — precisely the Modernist error that dogmas are not truths of divine origin but interpretations worked out by human consciousness (Proposition 22, Lamentabili).
“Bishop” Michael Burbidge’s response is equally vacuous: “I pray that civility and respect are fully restored as together, with God’s grace, we work for peace and harmony among all people.” This is not the language of a Catholic bishop. This is the language of a United Nations diplomat. Where is the language of Quas Primas: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ”? Where is the recognition that Christ the King demands obedience from rulers, not the other way around? Burbidge’s prayer for “civility and respect” in the face of blasphemy and heresy is a betrayal of every pope who ever confronted temporal power with the demands of the Gospel.
The Syllabus Condemns the Entire Framework
The entire discussion — Trump criticizing the “pope,” “bishops” defending the “pope,” politicians weighing in on both sides — operates within a framework that Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors as fundamentally incompatible with Catholicism.
Proposition 19: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free — nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.” The entire conciliar structure operates on this heretical premise. The “bishops” do not assert the Church’s divine right to independence; they plead for “civility” from secular rulers.
Proposition 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church.” This is the foundational principle of the post-conciliar revolution, enshrined in the heretical declaration Dignitatis Humanae of the Vatican II counterfeit council. The “Catholic” responses in this article all presuppose this separation — they treat the Church and the State as two independent entities that must negotiate their relationship, rather than recognizing that the State is subject to Christ the King and must publicly acknowledge His reign.
Proposition 77: “In the present day 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.” This indifferentist heresy permeates the entire discussion. No “bishop” in this article asserts that the United States has a duty to publicly recognize the Catholic Church as the true religion. They all operate within the framework of religious liberty — a framework condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos and by Pius IX in the Syllabus.
Trump’s Blasphemy and the Silence on Greater Blasphemies
President Trump’s AI-generated image of himself as Jesus Christ is indeed blasphemous, and the reactions of Edward Feser and Matt Fradd are commendable in this regard. Feser’s citation of Daniel 11:36-37 — “And the king shall do according to his will; he shall exalt himself and magnify himself above every god” — is apt. The sin of pride that leads a man to portray himself as Christ is a grave matter.
However, the selective outrage of the conciliar “Catholics” is revealing. They are outraged by Trump’s blasphemy but silent about the far greater blasphemies perpetrated daily within their own structures. The Novus Ordo Missae — a Protestantized rite designed by the Masonic consultant Annibale Bugnini with the participation of six Protestant “observers” — is a blasphemy against the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The “Eucharist” consecrated with invalid matter (leavened bread in some Eastern rites, or the ambiguous formulas of the new rite) is a blasphemy against the Real Presence. The “ecumenical” worship services that treat heretics and schismatics as brethren in faith are blasphemies against the unity of the Church. Where is the outrage of “Bishop” Barron when his own “church” engages in intercommunion with Protestants? Where is the indignation of “Bishop” Burbidge when Buddhist monks are invited to pray in “Catholic” churches?
The False Fatima Apparitions document notes that the post-conciliar structure has been taken over by Modernists who have reinterpreted every Catholic teaching in an ecumenical, indifferentist direction. The same structure that produces “bishops” who defend a usurper “pope” against a secular president is the same structure that has emptied churches of the true Mass, denied the reality of hell, and treated the conversion of Russia as a matter of dialogue with schismatics rather than their return to the Catholic Faith.
The “Catholic” Politicians: A Mirror of Conciliar Bankruptcy
The reactions of “Catholic” politicians further illustrate the bankruptcy of post-conciliar Catholicism. Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom’s taunt — “Hey @GOP, you good with your guy directly attacking the Pope now?” — is the reaction of a man who sees the “pope” as a political figure to be defended or attacked based on partisan allegiance, not as a spiritual authority. This is precisely the reduction of the Church to a political actor that Pius IX condemned.
Republican Representative Lukas Schubert’s defense of “Leo” is even more absurd: “Pope Leo is significantly further to the right than President Trump on abortion, gay marriage, and family values.” This statement reveals the complete capitulation of “Catholic” political thought to the categories of secular politics — “right” and “left,” “conservative” and “liberal.” Catholic doctrine is not “to the right” of anyone. It is the truth revealed by God, and it does not fit within the spectrum of American political opinion. The suggestion that “Leo” is acceptable because he is “more America First on the Iran War” reduces Catholic teaching to a foreign policy position — a grotesque distortion of the Church’s mission.
Pius XI taught in Quas Primas: “Christ the Lord is King of hearts because of His love, which surpasses knowledge, because of the gentleness and sweetness with which He draws souls to Himself.” The Kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and its defense cannot be reduced to political categories. The entire framework of “Catholic” political engagement in the post-conciliar era — defending or attacking “popes” based on their alignment with American political agendas — is a betrayal of the Church’s supernatural mission.
The True Church Endures
The spectacle described in this article — a secular president attacking a Modernist usurper, “bishops” pleading for “civility,” politicians choosing sides — is the inevitable fruit of the conciliar revolution. When the Church abandoned her divine mission and embraced the world, she became subject to the world’s judgments. When “popes” ceased to assert the rights of Christ the King and instead sought dialogue with secular power, they became targets of secular power’s contempt.
The true Church — the Church of all ages, the Church that produced the Syllabus of Errors and Quas Primas, the Church that canonized the saints and anathematized heretics — endures in the faithful who profess the integral Catholic faith. She does not depend on the recognition of presidents or the approval of politicians. She does not plead for “civility” from secular rulers. She proclaims, with Pius XI: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.”
The faithful must reject the entire post-conciliar structure — the usurper “popes,” the Modernist “bishops,” the indifferentist “Catholic” politicians — and return to the immutable Tradition of the Church. The answer to Trump’s blasphemy is not to defend a false pope, but to proclaim the true Kingship of Christ over all nations, all rulers, and all hearts. Non possumus — we cannot compromise with the spirit of the world, whether it manifests in the pride of a president or in the apostasy of a counterfeit church.
Source:
Trump’s Comments On Pope Leo Called ‘Disrespectful’ As Americans React (ncregister.com)
Date: 13.04.2026