EWTN News reports that “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) has decreed the dismissal from the clerical state of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, a priest of the Diocese of Orihuela-Alicante, for the canonical offense of “schism.” The cited article relates that the priest was punished for publicly labeling “Pope” Francis a “heretic” and questioning the validity of his election, as well as criticizing the apostolic exhortation *Amoris Laetitia* and the declaration *Fiducia Supplicans*. The penalty imposed—dismissal from the clerical state—is a modernist farce that punishes fidelity to Catholic doctrine while the architects of universal apostasy remain in power.
The Inversion of Justice: Punishing the Defense of Truth
The case of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo exposes the fundamental inversion of justice within the post-conciliar structures. A priest is punished not for doctrinal error, but for identifying error. The cited article states that the process began following the publication of a manifesto in which he labeled “Pope” Francis a “heretic” and questioned the validity of his election. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is not schism but obedience to the unchanging teaching of the Church. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. The priest’s “obstinacy” was his refusal to submit to a manifest heretic and his successors, which the conciliar sect defines as “schism” against the “Supreme Pontiff.”
The cited article notes that the priest criticized *Amoris Laetitia* and *Fiducia Supplicans*—documents that undermine the indissolubility of marriage and introduce moral relativism into the Church’s discipline. To condemn a priest for rejecting these modernist novelties is to condemn him for rejecting the evolution of dogmas and the corruption of moral theology. The conciliar sect demands submission to its novelties as the price of communion, a demand that is itself schismatic from the perennial Magisterium.
The Linguistic Camouflage of Apostasy
The language of the cited article is a masterpiece of modernist obfuscation. The priest is described as having a “repeated public rejection of the authority of Pope Francis and, subsequently, of Leo XIV himself.” The term “authority” is used here in a purely sociological and juridical sense, stripped of its supernatural foundation. In Catholic theology, authority is the right to command in God’s name, and it is inseparable from the truth of the Faith. To reject the authority of a heretic is not schism; it is a duty. The conciliar sect, however, has reduced authority to a bureaucratic structure, where submission to the office—regardless of the occupant’s faith—is the supreme law.
The article quotes Bishop Munilla, who urged the priest to alter the “stance expressed publicly and notoriously through various media outlets.” The use of “notoriously” is revealing. In canon law, a notorious crime is one that is public and cannot be concealed. The bishop admits that the priest’s stance was public, but the “crime” was the public profession of Catholic truth. The conciliar sect operates in darkness and demands that its members hide the light of truth under a bushel. The bishop’s admonition is a modernist echo of the Sanhedrin’s command to the Apostles not to speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:28).
The Theological Bankruptcy of the Penalty
The penalty imposed—dismissal from the clerical state—is a modernist juridical fiction. The cited article explains that “a priest remains a priest forever,” but that dismissal removes the rights associated with the state. This is a contradiction in terms. The indelible character of Holy Orders cannot be erased by any human authority. The conciliar sect claims the power to dismiss a priest from the clerical state, but this is a usurpation of divine law. The penalty is designed to silence dissent and to punish those who refuse to submit to the apostate hierarchy.
The article notes that the penalty was less severe than excommunication, which is the canonical penalty for schism. This is a calculated move to avoid the theological implications of declaring a defender of the faith a schismatic. If the priest were formally excommunicated for schism, the concivar sect would have to prove that his rejection of the “Supreme Pontiff” was unjustified—a task that would require proving that “Pope” Francis and his successors are not manifest heretics. The penalty of dismissal is a bureaucratic solution to a theological problem, designed to avoid the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the conciliar usurpers.
The Symptomatic Level: The Fruits of the Conciliar Revolution
The case of Vegara Cerezo is a symptom of the systemic apostasy of the post-conciliar structures. The conciliar sect has redefined schism as fidelity to the perennial Magisterium. The cited article states that the priest was punished for “refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” But the true schism is the separation from the teaching of Christ and His Church, which the conciliar sect has effected through its novelties. The priest’s refusal to submit is a refusal to participate in the schism of the conciliar sect.
The article quotes “Pope” Leo XIV’s words in the Canary Islands: “When you encounter difficulties, lift your gaze and ask the Holy Spirit for the grace to live united in faith, hope, and charity.” This is a modernist platitude that conceals the true nature of the crisis. Unity in faith is impossible without unity in truth. The conciliar sect demands unity in submission to its novelties, which is a false unity that leads to spiritual ruin. The priest’s case is a call to all Catholics to reject the false unity of the conciliar sect and to seek the true unity of the Catholic Faith.
Conclusion: The Witness of the Laicized Priest
The dismissal of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo is not a defeat but a witness. He has been punished for defending the Faith against the apostate hierarchy. His case is a reminder that the conciliar sect is not the Catholic Church but a counterfeit structure that punishes fidelity and rewards apostasy. The integral Catholic faithful must reject the authority of the conciliar usurpers and remain faithful to the unchanging teaching of the Church. As St. Pius X taught, the Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and theological sciences only when they contradict revealed truth. The conciliar sect, however, has made progress its god and demands submission to its evolution of dogmas. The priest’s case is a call to resist this apostasy and to remain faithful to the end.
[Antichurch] The Antichurch Laicizes a Priest for Defending the Faith: The Inversion of Justice in the Conciliar Sect
EWTN News reports that “Pope” Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) has decreed the dismissal from the clerical state of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo, a priest of the Diocese of Orihuela-Alicante, for the canonical offense of “schism.” The cited article relates that the priest was punished for publicly labeling “Pope” Francis a “heretic” and questioning the validity of his election, as well as criticizing the apostolic exhortation *Amoris Laetitia* and the declaration *Fiducia Supplicans*. The penalty imposed—dismissal from the clerical state—is a modernist farce that punishes fidelity to Catholic doctrine while the architects of universal apostasy remain in power.
The Inversion of Justice: Punishing the Defense of Truth
The case of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo exposes the fundamental inversion of justice within the post-conciliar structures. A priest is punished not for doctrinal error, but for identifying error. The cited article states that the process began following the publication of a manifesto in which he labeled “Pope” Francis a “heretic” and questioned the validity of his election. From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is not schism but obedience to the unchanging teaching of the Church. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church. The priest’s “obstinacy” was his refusal to submit to a manifest heretic and his successors, which the conciliar sect defines as “schism” against the “Supreme Pontiff.”
The cited article notes that the priest criticized *Amoris Laetitia* and *Fiducia Supplicans*—documents that undermine the indissolubility of marriage and introduce moral relativism into the Church’s discipline. To condemn a priest for rejecting these modernist novelties is to condemn him for rejecting the evolution of dogmas and the corruption of moral theology. The conciliar sect demands submission to its novelties as the price of communion, a demand that is itself schismatic from the perennial Magisterium.
The Linguistic Camouflage of Apostasy
The language of the cited article is a masterpiece of modernist obfuscation. The priest is described as having a repeated public rejection of the authority of Pope Francis and, subsequently, of Leo XIV himself. The term “authority” is used here in a purely sociological and juridical sense, stripped of its supernatural foundation. In Catholic theology, authority is the right to command in God’s name, and it is inseparable from the truth of the Faith. To reject the authority of a heretic is not schism; it is a duty. The conciliar sect, however, has reduced authority to a bureaucratic structure, where submission to the office—regardless of the occupant’s faith—is the supreme law.
The article quotes Bishop Munilla, who urged the priest to alter the stance expressed publicly and notoriously through various media outlets. The use of “notoriously” is revealing. In canon law, a notorious crime is one that is public and cannot be concealed. The bishop admits that the priest’s stance was public, but the “crime” was the public profession of Catholic truth. The conciliar sect operates in darkness and demands that its members hide the light of truth under a bushel. The bishop’s admonition is a modernist echo of the Sanhedrin’s command to the Apostles not to speak in the name of Jesus (Acts 5:28).
The Theological Bankruptcy of the Penalty
The penalty imposed—dismissal from the clerical state—is a modernist juridical fiction. The cited article explains that a priest remains a priest forever, but that dismissal removes the rights associated with the state. This is a contradiction in terms. The indelible character of Holy Orders cannot be erased by any human authority. The conciliar sect claims the power to dismiss a priest from the clerical state, but this is a usurpation of divine law. The penalty is designed to silence dissent and to punish those who refuse to submit to the apostate hierarchy.
The article notes that the penalty was less severe than excommunication, which is the canonical penalty for schism. This is a calculated move to avoid the theological implications of declaring a defender of the faith a schismatic. If the priest were formally excommunicated for schism, the conciliar sect would have to prove that his rejection of the “Supreme Pontiff” was unjustified—a task that would require proving that “Pope” Francis and his successors are not manifest heretics. The penalty of dismissal is a bureaucratic solution to a theological problem, designed to avoid the fundamental question of the legitimacy of the conciliar usurpers.
The Symptomatic Level: The Fruits of the Conciliar Revolution
The case of Vegara Cerezo is a symptom of the systemic apostasy of the post-conciliar structures. The conciliar sect has redefined schism as fidelity to the perennial Magisterium. The cited article states that the priest was punished for refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him. But the true schism is the separation from the teaching of Christ and His Church, which the conciliar sect has effected through its novelties. The priest’s refusal to submit is a refusal to participate in the schism of the conciliar sect.
The article quotes “Pope” Leo XIV’s words in the Canary Islands: When you encounter difficulties, lift your gaze and ask the Holy Spirit for the grace to live united in faith, hope, and charity. This is a modernist platitude that conceals the true nature of the crisis. Unity in faith is impossible without unity in truth. The conciliar sect demands unity in submission to its novelties, which is a false unity that leads to spiritual ruin. The priest’s case is a call to all Catholics to reject the false unity of the conciliar sect and to seek the true unity of the Catholic Faith.
Conclusion: The Witness of the Laicized Priest
The dismissal of Francisco José Vegara Cerezo is not a defeat but a witness. He has been punished for defending the Faith against the apostate hierarchy. His case is a reminder that the conciliar sect is not the Catholic Church but a counterfeit structure that punishes fidelity and rewards apostasy. The integral Catholic faithful must reject the authority of the conciliar usurpers and remain faithful to the unchanging teaching of the Church. As St. Pius X taught, the Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and theological sciences only when they contradict revealed truth. The conciliar sect, however, has made progress its god and demands submission to its evolution of dogmas. The priest’s case is a call to resist this apostasy and to remain faithful to the end.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV dismisses schismatic Spanish priest (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 28.06.2026