National Catholic Register portal reports (April 29, 2026) that during the press conference on the plane returning from Equatorial Guinea, the antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) addressed Cardinal Reinhard Marx’s practice of formally blessing same-sex couples, stating that the Holy See had informed German bishops it did not agree with “the formal blessing of couples — in this case, same-sex couples as requested — or of couples in irregular situations, beyond what Pope Francis has specifically permitted.” Leo XIV further emphasized that “when a priest gives the blessing at the end of Mass… there are blessings for all people,” invoking Francis’ expression “everyone, everyone, everyone” to express the Church’s welcome of all persons. He added that “to go beyond this today could cause more disunity than unity,” and that “we should seek to build our unity on Jesus Christ and on what Jesus Christ teaches.” The article further discusses the SSPX’s planned episcopal ordinations on July 2, the German “Synodal Way,” and the broader crisis of doctrine in the conciliar sect. The article thus presents Leo XIV’s intervention as a welcome correction to Francis’ pragmatism — yet this supposed “correction” leaves entirely intact the revolutionary foundation upon which the entire post-conciliar edifice rests.
The Illusion of a “Doctrinal Correction” Within a Doctrinal Vacuum
The central claim of Andrea Gagliarducci’s analysis is that Leo XIV’s remarks on the plane represent a “necessary discontinuity” with the Bergoglian pontificate, a restoration of doctrine over pragmatism. This framing is itself a masterpiece of conciarist rhetoric. It presupposes that the speaker — a man who occupies the Vatican apparatus, who was elected by a conclave of cardinals appointed exclusively by antipopes, who exercises no authority recognized by divine law — possesses the competence to adjudicate matters of faith and morals. The antipope’s words on blessings are juridically and spiritually null, regardless of their content, because “the Church” he claims to lead is not the Church of Christ but the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Mt 24:15).
Let us examine what Leo XIV actually said. He distinguished between a general blessing at the end of Mass — “blessings for all people” — and the “formal blessing of couples” in irregular situations. He invoked the principle of unity: “to go beyond this today could cause more disunity than unity.” Now, from the perspective of unchanging Catholic moral theology, both forms of blessing are problematic. The general blessing at the end of Mass, in the conciliar “Mass,” is itself a rite stripped of its sacrificial character, a ceremony that the faithful have every reason to regard with suspicion. But more fundamentally, the entire discussion operates within the framework established by Fiducia Supplicans — the 2023 declaration by the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith under the direction of the antipope Francis, which permitted the blessing of same-sex couples under certain conditions. Leo XIV does not repudiate Fiducia Supplicans. He does not declare it heretical. He merely says the Holy See “does not agree” with going “beyond” what Francis permitted. This is not a return to Catholic doctrine; it is an intramural dispute within the conciarist camp about how far to push the dissolution of moral teaching.
The true Catholic position, as taught by the perennial Magisterium, is not that there is a “right” degree of blessing for sodomites. It is that the Church has always condemned homosexual acts as intrinsically disordered and gravely sinful (Rom 1:26-27; Persona Humana, 1975 — itself already compromised, but still retaining fragments of the traditional teaching). The Council of Trent, Session XIV, Chapter 2, teaches that the sacraments are not mere signs of grace but efficacious signs that confer the grace they signify. A “blessing” in the Catholic understanding is not a vague gesture of welcome; it is a sacred rite invoking divine favor. To extend such a rite to persons living in manifest, unrepentant mortal sin is not mercy — it is sacrilege masquerading as pastoral care.
“Everyone, Everyone, Everyone” — The Universalism of the Conciliar Sect
Leo XIV’s invocation of Francis’ todos, todos, todos reveals the theological substrate that unites all the antipopes from John XXIII onward. The phrase “everyone is welcomed, everyone is invited, everyone is invited to follow Jesus” sounds pious, but it is a direct contradiction of Our Lord’s explicit teaching: “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat” (Mt 7:13). The Church does not “welcome everyone” indiscriminately; she calls sinners to conversion, to repentance, to the renunciation of sin. “Go, and sin no more” (Jn 8:11) — these are the words of Christ to the woman taken in adultery. Not “you are welcome as you are,” but “sin no more.”
This false universalism is the theological core of the conciliar revolution. It is the same error condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, Proposition 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation” — condemned as an error. It is the same error that St. Pius X identified as the essence of Modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907): the reduction of religion to sentiment, the denial of objective truth, the substitution of experience for doctrine. When Leo XIV says “everyone is invited to seek conversion in their own lives,” he relativizes conversion itself — making it a subjective, individual process rather than the objective, sacramental reality of baptism, confession, and amendment of life under the authority of the true Church.
The Eucharist as “Central Theme” of Social Doctrine — A Conciliar Distortion
The article notes that “the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church itself encompasses a variety of topics and organizes them around a central theme: the Eucharist.” This is presented as a weighty theological claim. But what does it mean in practice for the conciliar sect? The Eucharist it celebrates is the Novus Ordo Missae — a rite deliberately crafted, as Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci stated in their famous 1969 Brief Critical Study, in a manner that “represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Holy Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.” The “Eucharist” at the center of conciliar social doctrine is not the Most Holy Sacrifice of Calvary; it is the memorial meal of a community gathered around a table — a Protestant understanding of the Lord’s Supper dressed in Catholic vestments.
The true social doctrine of the Church, as articulated by Leo XIII in Immortale Dei and by Pius XI in Quas Primas, places the Eucharist at the center not as a “theme” for discussion but as the source and summit of the Church’s public worship and social order. Pius XI teaches in Quas Primas: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The reign of Christ the King demands that states, laws, and public institutions conform to divine law. The conciliar “social doctrine” replaces this supernatural kingship with naturalistic humanism — “justice, equality and peace,” as Leo XIV enumerated — stripped of any reference to sin, grace, and the obligation of nations to profess the Catholic faith.
The SSPX: Schism Within the Abyss
The article mentions the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) and its planned episcopal ordinations on July 2, noting that while the ordinations would be “valid” they would not be “licit” and would result in “excommunication” and “a small schism.” This framing is revealing. The author treats the SSPX’s canonical status as a matter of dispute within a single Church — as if the conciliar apparatus had the authority to excommunicate, and as if the SSPX’s recognition of that authority were merely a disciplinary irregularity.
The reality is far more serious. The SSPX, under Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, continuously acknowledged the legitimacy of the antipopes — Lefebvre himself stated, “give us the old Mass, that is enough for us,” thereby implicitly accepting the authority of the very men whose election is canonically null and whose teachings are heretical. The SSPX is a schism within a schism — it rejects the conciarist liturgy while accepting the conciarist hierarchy. Its “mercy” argument — asking that “the same mercy it had claimed to apply to other situations be applied to them” — is the language of the conciliar revolution itself: the suspension of law in the name of pastoral care, which is in reality the abolition of law.
As the sedevacantist analysis demonstrates, a manifest heretic loses his office ipso facto before any declaration by the Church (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, II.30; Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum). Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code confirms that every office becomes vacant “by the mere fact and without any declaration” by reason of public defection from the Catholic faith. The antipopes from John XXIII onward are manifest heretics; they never possessed the papal office; therefore, their “excommunications” are null and void, and their “laws” bind no one.
The German “Synodal Way” — Protestantization as Policy
The article correctly identifies the German “Synodal Way” as a “structural crisis rooted in the notion that the crisis of the Church in Germany… is rooted in antiquated systems that must be dismantled.” This is an understatement of staggering proportions. The Synodal Way is not merely a crisis; it is the logical fruit of the conciarist revolution applied to the most organized and wealthiest national church in Europe. It seeks to dismantle celibacy, redefine the family, and subject the Church’s teaching authority to democratic processes — in other words, it is Protestantism in its purest form, as Pope Francis himself recognized when he warned that “there was already an Evangelical Church in Germany.”
But Francis’ warning was hollow, because the very council he convoked — Vatican II — planted the seeds of this Protestantization. The declaration Dignitatis Humanae on religious freedom, the decree Unitatis Redintegratio on ecumenism, and the constitution Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the modern world all opened the door to the dissolution of Catholic identity. The Synodal Way is not a deviation from Vatican II; it is its faithful implementation. Leo XIV’s attempt to “place doctrine back at the center” while maintaining allegiance to the council is a contradiction in terms — like trying to rebuild a house while keeping the dynamite in its foundations.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity as Camouflage
The article notes that “Leo XIV has never explicitly distanced himself from Pope Francis’ pontificate. He recognizes his missionary zeal and wants to highlight his good faith and his desire to evangelize.” This is the hermeneutic of continuity — the conciarist strategy of claiming that Vatican II and its aftermath represent a legitimate development of doctrine rather than a rupture. It is the same strategy condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Proposition 58): “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” — condemned as an error. And Proposition 65: “Contemporary Catholicism cannot be reconciled with true knowledge without transforming it into a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism” — precisely what the Synodal Way and the entire conciarist project aim to achieve.
There is no “good faith” in a man who occupies the seat of Peter while professing heresy. There is no “missionary zeal” that can justify the destruction of the Church’s liturgy, the relativization of her moral teaching, and the surrender of her missionary mandate to the spirit of the world. Pius IX warned in the Syllabus of Errors (Proposition 80): “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” — condemned as an error. This is precisely what every antipope from John XXIII to Leo XIV has done.
Conclusion: A Line Drawn in Sand Before the Tide of Apostasy
Leo XIV’s intervention on blessings is, at best, a tactical adjustment within a strategically apostate institution. It does not repudiate Fiducia Supplicans. It does not condemn the Synodal Way as heretical. It does not restore the traditional Mass. It does not reaffirm the social kingship of Christ. It does not deny religious freedom, false ecumenism, or the cult of man. It draws a line in the sand — but the tide of apostasy rises on every side, and the sand is the foundation of a council that was itself the greatest crisis in the history of the Church.
The faithful who desire salvation must look beyond the Vatican apparatus entirely. The true Church endures — in the unchanging doctrine of the ecumenical councils before Trent, in the Most Holy Sacrifice offered by validly ordained priests who reject the conciliar revolution, in the integral Catholic faith that recognizes no “development” of dogma, no “pastoral” suspension of moral law, and no “mercy” that would leave a soul in the state of mortal sin. As Pius XI proclaimed in Quas Primas: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” Until that reign is restored — in doctrine, in liturgy, in law, and in the hearts of the faithful — no papal plane press conference, however doctrinally “correct” its tone, can arrest the destruction wrought by seventy years of conciarist apostasy.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV: The End of the Pragmatic Approach (ncregister.com)
Date: 29.04.2026