The National Catholic Register reports that on June 6, 2026, the antipope Robert Prevost — who usurps the name Leo XIV — arrived in Spain and delivered a speech to government leaders and the Spanish royal family at the Royal Palace in Madrid. He declared he came “to confirm, encourage and inspire a renewed loyalty of believers to the Gospel, as well as a deeper reconciliation and cooperation between the different forces of this Nation.” In typical modernist fashion, he invoked “dialogue with others — and with the Other with capital letters,” cited St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Jesus as “mystics with open eyes,” praised the School of Translators of Alfonso X where “specialists from the three religions collaborated,” explicitly naming the Muslim Averroes and the Jewish Maimonides as examples of “cooperation between religious traditions for the common good,” and warned against “the temptation to gain popularity by fanning the fire of polarization.” King Felipe VI responded by calling the antipope’s voice “a source of inspiration for more than 1.4 billion faithful” that “resonates, by its ethical content, far beyond, in all consciences.” Not once in this entire spectacle was Christ the King proclaimed, not once was the Catholic Church affirmed as the sole true religion, and not once was Spain called to its historic Catholic identity and the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. This is the abomination of desolation speaking from the throne that once belonged to Peter.
The “Reconciliation” That Denies the Kingship of Christ
The central theme of Leo XIV’s address to Spanish leaders was “reconciliation” — a word repeated with the frequency of a mantra, emptied of all Catholic content and refilled with the spirit of the conciliar sect. He stated he came “to confirm, encourage and inspire a renewed loyalty of believers to the Gospel, as well as a deeper reconciliation and cooperation between the different forces of this Nation.” Let us examine what this means in light of immutable Catholic teaching.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely because “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.” The true Pope declared: “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.” And further: “It matters not whether individuals, families, or states, for men united in societies are no less subject to the authority of Christ than individuals.”
What does Leo XIV propose instead? “Reconciliation and cooperation between the different forces of this Nation” — a formula that deliberately omits any reference to the obligation of the state to recognize Christ as its King and to order all laws according to divine law. This is not Catholic teaching; it is the language of indifferentism condemned by Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832) and by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, which explicitly condemned the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80).
The antipope warned that his message of reconciliation “resonates for some as naive and for others as provocative,” but said it is “welcomed in those who do not close themselves in prefabricated ideologies.” This is a classic modernist rhetorical device: labeling the immutable Catholic faith as a “prefabricated ideology” while presenting apostasy as openness to “truth.” The truth, he said, “is always greater than us” — a deliberately vague formulation that, in modernist theology, means truth is always evolving, never fixed, never defined by the Magisterium.
“Dialogue with the Other with Capital Letters”: Naturalism Disguised as Mysticism
Perhaps the most revealing sentence in the entire address was this: “The truth is always greater than us and that is why it surprises us and attracts us to paths of purification and reconciliation, in which dialogue with others — and with the Other with capital letters — becomes fundamental.”
What is “the Other with capital letters”? In the modernist lexicon, this is a reference to God — but a God deliberately left undefined, unconfessed, unclaimed as the Holy Trinity, Our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the god of natural religion, the god of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate, the god who is equally “encountered” in a mosque, a synagogue, or a Hindu temple. This is pantheism and indifferentism dressed in mystical language — precisely the error condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus: “There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe” (Proposition 1), and “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16).
The antipope’s invocation of “dialogue with the Other” as the path to reconciliation is the antithesis of Catholic teaching. St. Paul declares: “There is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Tim. 2:5). Our Lord Himself said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me” (John 14:6). The idea that “dialogue” with an undefined “Other” is the path to reconciliation is not Catholic spirituality — it is the naturalism condemned by the Syllabus of Errors in its entirety, which Pius IX called “the plague that poisons human society.”
The Weaponization of the Saints: St. Teresa and St. John of the Cross as “Mystics with Open Eyes”
Leo XIV cited “two great Spanish mystics of the sixteenth century, Saint John of the Cross and Saint Teresa of Jesus,” presenting them as examples of “mystics with open eyes” who were “not alien to history” but reached “the root of the questions, to the heart of reality.” He evoked St. Teresa’s “inner castle” — but stripped it of its Catholic meaning, presenting it not as the soul’s journey toward union with the Holy Trinity through prayer, mortification, and the sacraments, but as a model for “dialogue” and “reconciliation” with the world.
This is a deliberate hijacking of the saints. St. Teresa of Jesus was a daughter of the Counter-Reformation who fought against the laxity of her age and reformed the Carmelite order with strict observance. St. John of the Cross wrote of the “dark night of the soul” — a purification that demands the renunciation of all worldly consolation and the total surrender to God alone. Neither of these saints ever taught that the path to God runs through “dialogue with others” or “cooperation between different forces.” Both taught that the soul must detach from all created things to be united with the uncreated God.
The antipope’s use of the phrase “totus Alius et semper Novus” — “the wholly Other and always New” — to describe God is not Catholic theology. It is the language of 20th-century Protestant existentialism (Rudolf Otto, Karl Barth) imported into Catholic discourse by modernists. True Catholic theology confesses God as He Who Is (Ex. 3:14) — unchanging, immutable, the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8). The God of Catholic tradition is not “always New” in the modernist sense of perpetually evolving revelation; He is eternally the same, and His revelation was completed with the death of the last Apostle.
Averroes and Maimonides: Praise of Non-Catholic Thinkers as Models of “Cooperation”
In a passage that should make every Catholic shudder, the antipope “mentioned thinkers such as Averroes (1126-1198) and Maimonides (1138-1204) as examples of the possibility of cooperation between religious traditions for the common good.” He recalled “the work of the School of Translators of Alfonso X the Wise, where specialists from the three religions collaborated in the transmission of classical and medieval knowledge.”
Let us be clear: Averroes (Ibn Rushd) was a Muslim philosopher whose commentaries on Aristotle were condemned by the Catholic Church for their errors regarding the nature of the soul and the denial of individual immortality. Maimonides was a Jewish rabbi and philosopher whose works, while containing some natural truths accessible to reason, were written from a perspective that explicitly denied the divinity of Christ and the truth of the Catholic faith. To hold them up as models of “cooperation between religious traditions” is to implicitly affirm that Islam and Judaism are valid paths to truth — a proposition condemned by the Syllabus of Errors: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Proposition 17).
Pope Pius IX, in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), while acknowledging that God is not bound by the ordinary means of salvation, nevertheless declared that “those who are in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, are not subject to any guilt in this matter before the eyes of the Lord” — but he immediately added that “whoever labors under invincible ignorance regarding our most holy religion, if he carefully keeps the precepts of the natural law that God has written in the hearts of all men, and is prepared to obey God, can, by the operation of divine light and grace, attain eternal life.” The key distinction is invincible ignorance — not the positive promotion of non-Catholic religions as partners in “cooperation for the common good.”
The antipope’s praise of the School of Translators of Alfonso X is a classic modernist technique: using a historical fact (the collaboration of Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scholars in medieval Spain) to promote the theological error of religious indifferentism. The collaboration was real, but it was the Christian scholars who were seeking to recover Aristotelian philosophy for the service of Catholic theology — not to affirm the equal validity of Islam and Judaism. St. Thomas Aquinas himself used Averroes extensively — but always to refute his errors, not to praise him as a model of interreligious cooperation.
The Silence About Spain’s Catholic Identity and the Social Kingship of Christ
The most damning aspect of this entire address is what it omits. Spain — the nation that produced St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Teresa of Jesus, St. John of the Cross, St. Francis Xavier, St. John of the Cross, the conquistadors who evangelized an entire continent, the soldiers who fought the Reconquista for 700 years to liberate the Iberian Peninsula from Islamic occupation — is a nation whose entire history and culture are inseparable from the Catholic faith. King Felipe VI himself acknowledged this: “Catholic faith is rooted in our country and without it — you well know — our history and our culture would not be understood.”
Yet the antipope said nothing about Spain’s obligation as a nation to publicly recognize the Kingship of Christ. He said nothing about the mortal sin of defection from the Catholic faith. He said nothing about the duty of Catholic rulers to order their laws according to the commandments of God. He said nothing about the necessity of Spain returning to its Catholic roots and repudiating the secularism, religious indifferentism, and moral corruption that have devastated the nation since the death of Francisco Franco.
Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, was unequivocal: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ, but let them fulfill this duty themselves and with their people, if they wish to maintain their authority inviolate and contribute to the increase of their homeland’s happiness.” And further: “When God and Jesus Christ — as we lamented — were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.”
The antipope’s call to “abandon the divisive and polarizing narratives of your social reality and its history” is particularly sinister. What are these “divisive narratives”? In the modernist lexicon, this refers to any historical account that acknowledges the Catholic Church’s role in shaping Spain’s identity, the evils of the Spanish Republic that martyred thousands of priests and religious, or the moral failures of the current secular order. The antipope is asking Spain to repudiate its own Catholic history in the name of “reconciliation” — which is to say, in the name of the very secularism and religious indifferentism that the true Popes condemned as the source of all modern evils.
King Felipe VI and the Monarchy’s Complicity
King Felipe VI’s response to the antipope was itself a masterpiece of modernist complicity. He declared that the antipope’s voice “is today a source of inspiration for more than 1.4 billion faithful; but it resonates, by its ethical content, far beyond, in all consciences.” This is universalism — the idea that the conciliar sect’s message is a universal “ethical content” that speaks to all people regardless of their religious affiliation. It is the exact opposite of Catholic teaching, which holds that the Catholic Church is the one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, and that her message is not “ethical content” but divine truth that demands the assent of faith.
The king’s reference to “more than 1.4 billion faithful” is also revealing. This is the standard conciliar sect statistic that includes everyone who has ever been baptized — regardless of whether they practice the faith, believe the faith, or even know what the faith is. It is a number designed to create the illusion of a vast, unified “Church” that in reality is a paramasonic structure filled with apostates, heretics, and indifferentists.
The fact that Felipe VI and Queen Letizia attended the “opening Mass of the pontificate” on May 18 of the previous year, and that the king was invested as “proto-canon of the Basilica of Santa María la Mayor,” demonstrates the Spanish monarchy’s full integration into the conciliar apostasy. A Catholic king, in the tradition of St. Louis IX of France or St. Ferdinand III of Castile, would recognize no usurper on the Chair of Peter and would defend the faith of his people against all enemies, within and without.
The Antipope’s Encyclical Magnifica Humanitas: The Cult of Man
The antipope alluded to his encyclical Magnifica humanitas, published on May 25, 2026, in which he spoke of “the civilization of love.” This title alone is revealing: Magnifica Humanitas — “Magnificent Humanity” — places man, not God, at the center. This is the cult of man that St. Pius X condemned in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907) as the essence of Modernism: “The whole of modernism, as we have already indicated, is made up of two elements: the one is the corruption of the intellect, which is agnosticism; the other is the corruption of the will, which is the cult of man.”
The “civilization of love” is not the Kingdom of Christ. It is the naturalistic utopianism of the United Nations, the European Union, and the globalist project — stripped of all reference to sin, grace, the sacraments, and the final judgment. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, identified the true source of peace: “Oh, what happiness we would enjoy if individuals, families, and states allowed themselves to be governed by Christ.” The antipope offers instead a “civilization of love” without Christ the King — which is to say, a civilization without God, without truth, without salvation.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Royal Palace
What took place in Madrid on June 6, 2026, was not a papal visit. It was a state visit by the head of a paramasonic structure to a European monarchy that has long since abandoned its Catholic identity. The antipope Robert Prevost came not to preach Christ the King, not to call Spain to repentance, not to reaffirm the Catholic Church as the one true religion, but to promote “reconciliation” — which is to say, the final erasure of Spain’s Catholic identity in the name of globalist indifferentism.
The true Popes — from St. Peter to Pius XII — would have entered Madrid with the cry of “You are Christ the King of glory!” They would have demanded that the Spanish state recognize the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ. They would have condemned religious indifferentism, secularism, and the cooperation with non-Catholic religions as mortal sins against the faith. They would have called Spain to return to its glorious Catholic heritage, not to “abandon divisive narratives” about that heritage.
Instead, the usurper on the Chair of Peter offered “dialogue with the Other with capital letters,” praised a Muslim philosopher and a Jewish rabbi as models of cooperation, and called for the abandonment of “polarizing narratives” — which is to say, the abandonment of the Catholic faith itself. This is not the voice of Peter. It is the voice of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). Let every Catholic who still has faith in his heart reject this counterfeit and cling to the immutable Tradition of the Church — the faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3), which neither Robert Prevost nor any other usurper can change, corrupt, or destroy.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV Tells Leaders in Spain That He Comes to Promote a National ‘Reconciliation’ (ncregister.com)
Date: 06.06.2026