The Pillar Catholic portal (May 23, 2026) presents a paid commentary by Tim Glemkowski, a self-described Catholic ministry professional, who reflects on the first year of the pontificate of the usurper Robert Prevost, known as “Pope Leo XIV.” Glemkowski describes his initial “fear” before the 2025 conclave, his relief at Leo XIV’s election, and his admiration for the latter’s perceived ability to heal divisions within the conciliar sect. He proposes a “hermeneutic key” for understanding Leo XIV: viewing him as an honorary member of the so-called “JP2 Generation” — that is, those shaped by the pontificate of the heretic and apostate Karol Wojtyła, known as John Paul II. Glemkowski expresses gratitude for Leo XIV’s first year, comparing it favorably to the 12-year “renewal” he claims occurred under the apostate Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”). This article is a textbook example of the theological and spiritual bankruptcy of the post-conciliar mentality, treating the Antichrist’s counterfeit church as the true Church and its apostasies as “renewal.”
The Conciliar Sect as “The Church”: A Foundational Heresy
Glemkowski writes as though the structures occupying the Vatican since 1958 constitute the true Church of Christ. He speaks of “the Church” receiving “a new pope,” referring to Robert Prevost — a man who holds the Chair of Peter not by divine right but by the machinations of a paramasonic structure that has systematically dismantled Catholic doctrine since the death of Pope Pius XII. There is no true pope on the throne of Peter since 1958. The entire line from John XXIII onward consists of usurpers, manifest heretics, and apostates who have forfeited any claim to the papacy by their public defection from the Catholic faith. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice (Book II, Chapter 30): “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.” This principle, confirmed by Wernz and Vidal in Ius Canonicum, is not a matter of opinion but of theological certainty. The conciliar sect is not the Church; it is the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15).
Glemkowski’s use of the phrase “the Church received and welcomed a new pope” is not merely sloppy journalism — it is a profession of faith in the legitimacy of an institution that has formally and materially departed from the Catholic faith. The Code of Canon Law (1917), Canon 188.4, states that “every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration by reason of tacit resignation… if the cleric publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” The post-conciliar antipopes have done precisely this, as evidenced by their endorsement of religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), and the liturgical revolution that destroyed the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Glemkowski’s failure to recognize this — or his deliberate suppression of it — reveals the depth of his captivity to the conciliar narrative.
The “JPII Generation”: A Generation Formed by Apostasy
The central thesis of Glemkowski’s article is that Leo XIV should be understood as an honorary member of the “JP2 Generation” — those shaped by the pontificate of Karol Wojtyła (1978–2005). This is presented as a compliment, a “hermeneutic key” that “clicks pieces into place.” Let us examine what this actually means.
Karol Wojtyła was a manifest heretic and apostate. He kissed the Quran, prayed with animists at Assisi in 1986, promoted the theology of religious liberty condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (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”), and systematically undermined Catholic moral teaching through his ambiguous personalism and his failure to condemn the homosexual agenda. His pontificate was the single greatest engine of the destruction of Catholic faith and discipline since the Protestant Reformation. The “JPII Generation,” therefore, is not a generation formed by the Catholic faith — it is a generation formed by the negation of the Catholic faith, by the cult of man, by false ecumenism, and by the democratization of the Church.
To propose that Leo XIV is best understood through this lens is to admit that his pontificate is a continuation of the apostasy. Glemkowski does not see this because he has no criterion by which to judge. He has accepted the conciar revolution as normative and measures all things by its standards. The “JPII Generation” is, in Catholic terms, a generation of apostates — and Leo XIV is their heir.
“Renewal” Under Bergoglio: The Fruit of the Conciliar Revolution
Glemkowski writes with admiration of the “12 steady years of renewal in parishes and dioceses” under Jorge Bergoglio (“Pope Francis”), citing Evangelii Gaudium as a “powerful charter” for this renewal. This statement is breathtaking in its blindness. What was the fruit of Bergoglio’s pontificate? The further erosion of Catholic doctrine on marriage and the family (through Amoris Laetitia), the promotion of environmentalist and globalist agendas within the Church, the silencing of faithful clergy, the persecution of those who cling to the Traditional Latin Mass (Traditionis Custodes), and the normalization of sodomite relationships through the declaration Fiducia Supplicans. This is not “renewal” — it is accelerated apostasy.
Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925), taught that “the plague which poisons human society” is “the secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors.” The conciliar sect has not fought this plague — it has embraced it. Bergoglio’s “renewal” was the culmination of the process condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors: the reconciliation of the Church with “progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (proposition 80). Glemkowski praises this as a blessing. The faithful Catholic recognizes it as a catastrophe.
Fear of Division, Not of Apostasy
Glemkowski admits that his “honest emotion going into last year’s conclave was fear” — not fear of God, not fear of heresy, not fear of the destruction of the faith, but fear that “the next pope would not be the man, either in personality or ideology, who could heal those divisions.” This is the quintessential conciliar mentality: the greatest evil is not apostasy but disunity. The greatest good is not fidelity to Catholic doctrine but healing divisions — which, in practice, means suppressing dissent and enforcing conformity to the revolutionary program.
The Catholic position is radically different. As Pope Pius XI declared in Quas Primas: “The Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men… His reign 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 duty of the faithful is not to “heal divisions” within a heretical structure but to proclaim the kingship of Christ and to call all men — including the occupants of the Vatican — to repentance and conversion.
Glemkowski’s fear reveals that he has accepted the premises of the conciliar revolution as the framework within which he operates. He does not question the legitimacy of the conclave, the validity of the “election,” or the orthodoxy of the candidates. He is concerned only with whether the new usurper will be effective in managing the crisis — not whether the crisis itself is the just judgment of God upon an apostate institution.
The “Windy City” Sentimentality
Glemkowski notes with evident satisfaction that Leo XIV is “from the Windy City” — Chicago, like the author himself. This parochial sentimentality is symptomatic of the conciliar mentality, which has replaced the supernatural universality of the Catholic Church with a tribal, identity-based affiliation. The true Church is not defined by geography, ethnicity, or personal biography — it is defined by the profession of the Catholic faith, the valid reception of the sacraments, and the authority of the true pope. The fact that Glemkowski finds Leo IV’s Chicago origins meaningful reveals how thoroughly the conciliar sect has replaced Catholic identity with secular categories.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity as a Weapon of Apostasy
Glemkowski’s proposed “hermeneutic key” — understanding Leo XIV as a member of the “JPII Generation” — is itself a variant of the “hermeneutic of continuity,” the modernist strategy of claiming that the conciar revolution is a legitimate development of the pre-conciliar Church. This hermeneutic was explicitly condemned by Pope St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), which rejected the proposition that “the Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and natural sciences” (proposition 57) and that “truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (proposition 58). The hermeneutic of continuity is not a tool of fidelity — it is a tool of deception, designed to make the faithful accept the revolution as legitimate.
Glemkowski’s use of this hermeneutic to interpret Leo XIV confirms that the new antipope will continue the work of his predecessors: the consolidation of the conciliar revolution, the suppression of authentic Catholic resistance, and the final transformation of the structures occupying the Vatican into a fully globalist, syncretistic, and anti-Catholic institution.
Conclusion: Gratitude for the Antichrist’s Servant
Glemkowski concludes: “I am not ashamed to admit that I get choked up to think of how grateful I am for this man.” This is the most revealing sentence in the article. The author is grateful to a manifest heretic and usurper for continuing the work of destruction begun by John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis. He is grateful not for the preservation of the faith but for the management of its dissolution.
The faithful Catholic, by contrast, recognizes that the conciar sect is not the Church, that its “popes” are not popes, that its “renewal” is apostasy, and that the only appropriate response is resistance, prayer, and the uncompromising profession of the integral Catholic faith. As Pope Pius IX declared in the Syllabus of Errors: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” — this proposition is condemned. Leo XIV, like his predecessors, has reconciled himself with the world. Let the faithful reconcile themselves with Christ the King — and with Him alone.
Source:
Leo, and the ‘JPII generation’ (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 23.05.2026