Pillar Catholic portal reports on the activities of the antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) during his visit to Spain, his upcoming 44th priestly ordination anniversary, and various news items including the Dallas Charter revision and a story about a Catholic school graduate with Down syndrome. The article presents the antipope’s visit as largely successful, his speeches as intellectually significant, and his gestures—such as speaking Catalan in Barcelona—as evidence of his humanity and diplomatic skill. Beneath the veneer of Catholic commentary, the article functions as uncritical propaganda for the conciliar sect, normalizing the authority of an antipope while ignoring the theological and ecclesial catastrophe that his very existence represents.
The Antipope’s Spanish Sojourn: Diplomacy in Service of a False Church
The Pillar Catholic portal presents the visit of Robert Prevost—the individual occupying the Vatican under the name Leo XIV—to Spain as a resounding success, noting that “everywhere Leo has gone, he’s been more well received than was expected.” The article highlights his speech to the Spanish legislature as a potential “intellectual tent pole,” touching on “the rule of law and Christian anthropology, a just economics and politics, the ends of culture, and the transcendent destiny of every single human soul.”
Let us be clear: no speech, however eloquent, however cloaked in the language of Christian anthropology, can have any binding authority when delivered by a man who lacks legitimate papal authority. The Catholic Church teaches that the Vicar of Christ is the successor of St. Peter, holding supreme, full, immediate, and universal jurisdiction over the Church (Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus). The antipopes of the conciliar sect, beginning with John XXIII, have presided over the systematic destruction of Catholic doctrine, the demolition of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass through the Novus Ordo of Paul VI (a liturgical revolution engineered by the known Freemason Annibale Bugnini and his associates), and the promotion of religious liberty, ecumenism, and religious indifferentism—all formally condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Pope Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), 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 entire trajectory of the conciliar sect has been precisely this reconciliation with the world. Leo XIV’s speech to the Spanish legislature, no matter how many references it contains to “transcendent destiny,” is delivered within the framework of a church that has formally embraced the very errors Pius IX condemned. The “Christian anthropology” referenced is not the unchanging anthropology of the Catholic Church, which recognizes the necessity of the supernatural order, the reality of original sin, and the absolute necessity of the one true Church for salvation, but rather a diluted, modernist anthropology compatible with the secular humanism of the Enlightenment.
The Catalan Controversy: A Masterclass in Worldly Diplomacy
The article notes with approval how Leo “dispelled controversy” in Barcelona by speaking Catalan, describing this as evidence that “Leo has a way of dispelling controversy with humanity.” This is precisely the problem. The Catholic Church is not a diplomatic corps; her mission is not to win the approval of men but to preach the Gospel and administer the sacraments. Our Lord Jesus Christ did not seek to “dispel controversy” with the Pharisees; He called them a “generation of vipers” (Matthew 12:34). St. Paul “did not please men” but God (Galatians 1:10).
The antipope’s gesture in speaking Catalan is a purely political act, designed to curry favor with a separatist movement. The article itself acknowledges that “some took that exhortation as an act of disrespect to the pope” and that “others expressed concern that papal remarks in Catalan would be used politically by the independence movement.” The fact that the antipope proceeded anyway, and that the article presents this as a virtue, reveals the fundamentally worldly orientation of the conciliar sect. The true Church has always been concerned with the salvation of souls, not with linguistic politics or nationalist movements.
The Anniversary of an Ordination: Validity in Question
The article notes with sentimental fondness that Leo XIV celebrates the 44th anniversary of his priestly ordination on June 19, 1982, and provides details about the ordaining bishop, Jean Jadot, and the diaconal ordination by Thomas Gumbleton. The article describes Gumbleton as “a complicated and well-known figure in American ecclesiastical circles” who was “no stranger to controversy” and whose “theology was often criticized as outside the bounds of Catholic doctrine.”
This is a masterful understatement. Thomas Gumbleton was a notorious dissident who publicly dissented from Catholic teaching on homosexuality, women’s ordination, and other matters of faith and morals. He was a signatory of the 1984 New York Times advertisement dissenting from the Church’s teaching on abortion. He was eventually removed from his pastoral assignment by Benedict XVI (another antipope of the conciliar sect) after decades of public dissent. That a man with such a record ordained Robert Prevost to the diaconate is not a mere curiosity; it is a symptom of the complete breakdown of ecclesiastical discipline in the conciliar sect.
Furthermore, the question of the validity of ordinations performed within the conciliar sect after the introduction of the new rite of ordination in 1968 remains a serious theological concern. The Catholic Church has always taught that the intention of the minister must correspond to the intention of the Church for a sacrament to be valid (Council of Trent, Session VII, Canon 11). The revised rite of ordination introduced ambiguities that have led many theologians to question whether the requisite intention is present. The article’s casual treatment of Leo’s ordination anniversary, without any mention of these grave concerns, is a telling omission.
The Dallas Charter: Moral Commitments Without Teeth
The article discusses the upcoming vote on a revised version of the Dallas Charter, the document first published in 2002 in response to the sexual abuse crisis. The author notes that the revised version is “something much closer to a tweaking than a rethink” and raises several pointed questions about its limitations.
The author observes that the Charter “remains explicitly focused on the abuse of minors” and does not address “the question of how they’ll act when they are themselves the subject of allegations.” He notes that the charter “doesn’t mention contentious questions—like why bishops don’t generally remove themselves from ministry during Vos estis lux mundi investigations, given that priests are removed during analogous investigations.”
These are valid observations, but they do not go far enough. The entire Dallas Charter framework is a product of the conciliar sect’s fundamentally flawed ecclesiology. The Charter is described as “a moral agreement among the bishops, committing to certain standards” rather than “particular law.” This distinction is crucial: the bishops of the conciliar sect have chosen to bind themselves by moral agreements rather than by the binding law of the Church. This is consistent with the conciliar sect’s general approach to governance, which prefers the appearance of accountability to its substance.
The true Church has always governed herself through canon law, which is not merely a “moral agreement” but a binding juridical framework with real penalties for violations. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Benedict XV, provided clear procedures for the investigation and punishment of bishops who fell into heresy or other crimes. Canon 188.4 stated that “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.” The conciliar sect has systematically ignored these provisions, preferring instead to handle scandals through public relations management and “listening sessions.”
The Toy Story Distraction: Cultural Commentary as Spiritual Evasion
The article concludes with a curious digression on the Toy Story franchise, which the author describes as “neither masterpieces of storytelling nor film-making; they’re two trick ponies, dependent on cheap nostalgia and our looming fear of death.”
While the author’s cultural critique may have some merit, its inclusion in an article otherwise devoted to the activities of the antipope and the affairs of the conciliar sect is revealing. The article moves seamlessly from the antipope’s visit to Spain, to the Dallas Charter revision, to a Catholic school graduate with Down syndrome, to a critique of Toy Story. This is the modus operandi of the conciliar sect’s media apparatus: a constant stream of content designed to create the impression of normalcy, of a Church that is engaged with culture, concerned with social issues, and led by a “human” pope who likes Chinese food and baseball.
The true Church has always recognized that the primary danger to souls is not cultural mediocrity but heresy and apostasy. St. Pius X, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), identified Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies” and warned that its adherents “lay the axe not to the branches and shoots, but to the very root, that is, to the faith and its deepest fibers.” The conciliar sect is the institutional embodiment of Modernism, and no amount of cultural commentary, no matter how astute, can obscure this fundamental reality.
The Deeper Apostasy: What the Article Omits
The most telling aspect of the article is not what it says but what it omits. There is no mention of the theological crisis that has engulfed the conciliar sect since 1958. There is no mention of the heresies promulgated by the Second Vatican Council, particularly Dignitatis Humanae (which affirmed the right to religious liberty, directly contradicting the teaching of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos and Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors), Nostra Aetate (which opened the door to religious indifferentism regarding non-Christian religions), and Unitatis Redintegratio (which redefined the Church’s relationship with Protestant and Orthodox communities in ways that contradict the teaching that outside the Church there is no salvation).
There is no mention of the liturgical revolution that replaced the Traditional Latin Mass—the Mass of the Ages, codified by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent—with the Novus Ordo Missae, a liturgical text that even Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later the antipope Benedict XVI) acknowledged was “made by academics, not by the Church” and that Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, in the famous Ottaviani Intervention of 1969, declared represented “a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXII of the Council of Trent.”
There is no mention of the systematic persecution of priests and faithful who wish to preserve the Traditional Latin Mass, as documented in the motu proprio Traditionis Custodes (2021) of the antipope Francis, which effectively banned the Traditional Mass in many dioceses and subjected priests who celebrate it to disciplinary action.
There is no mention of the fact that the antipope Leo XIV, like his predecessors, has publicly endorsed the conciliar sect’s positions on ecumenism, religious liberty, and interfaith dialogue—all of which are formally condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
The article presents the conciliar sect as the Catholic Church, its antipope as the Vicar of Christ, its bishops as legitimate pastors, and its liturgies as valid worship. This is the great deception of our time, and it is a deception that the faithful must resist with every fiber of their being.
Conclusion: The Duty of the Faithful
The Catholic Church teaches that a manifest heretic ceases to be a member of the Church and, if he holds ecclesiastical office, loses that office automatically (ipso facto), without any declaration by the Church. St. Robert Bellarmine, in De Romano Pontifice (Book II, Chapter 30), states: “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.” John of St. Thomas, quoting Bellarmine, argues: “A heretic is not a member, therefore he cannot be the head of the Church… a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.”
The antipopes of the conciliar sect have repeatedly and publicly professed heresies condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. They have promoted religious liberty, ecumenism, and the evolution of dogma. They have persecuted the faithful who cling to Tradition. They have presided over the destruction of the liturgy, the dissolution of religious life, and the emptying of churches across the Western world.
The faithful are not bound to obey these men. On the contrary, they have a duty to resist them, to preserve the Faith in its integrity, and to seek out valid sacraments from priests who have not succumbed to the conciliar apostasy. As Pope Pius XI wrote in Quas Primas (1925): “If rulers and legitimate superiors will have the conviction that they exercise authority not so much by their own right as by the command and in the place of the Divine King, everyone will notice how religiously and wisely they will use their authority.”
The reign of Christ the King is not a metaphor. It is a reality that demands the submission of every individual, every family, and every state. The conciliar sect has rejected this reign in favor of a false “dialogue” with the world. The faithful must not follow them into this apostasy. They must hold fast to the Faith of their fathers, to the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as celebrated for centuries, and to the unchanging teaching of the Magisterium.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam.
Source:
España, papal anniversaries, and the Toy Story story (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 09.06.2026