The National Catholic Register (NCR) portal, via its CNA wire service, reports on a homily delivered by Silvio Báez, the exiled auxiliary “bishop” of Managua, at a “Mass” in Miami on August 30, 2026. The article portrays Báez as a heroic confessor persecuted by the Ortega-Murillo dictatorship, contrasting the regime’s alleged misuse of religion with a “cross” reduced to socio-political activism. The piece cites “Pope” Francis as having ordered Báez’s exile in 2019 and “Pope” Leo XIV as having “confirmed him in his role” in 2025. This report exemplifies the conciliar sect’s replacement of the supernatural Kingship of Christ with a naturalistic, Masonic dialectic of “human rights” and “democracy” versus “dictatorship.”
The Conciliar Sect’s Political Gospel: A Counterfeit Cross
The cited article presents a “bishop” of the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican preaching a homily that could have been drafted by a secular NGO. Báez declares that “worn-out dictatorships that hypocritically hide behind religion profane the name of Jesus when they invoke him from their position of power and attribute to him the dominion they exercise over the people, yet never speak of the cross.” This rhetoric is a classic maneuver of the Church of the New Advent: it acknowledges the Name of Christ only to strip it of its sacramental, propitiatory, and regal reality, refashioning the Cross into a symbol of generic humanitarian resistance.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches with absolute clarity: “His reign encompasses not only Catholic nations… 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 encyclical establishes that the remedy for the “plague… of secularism, so-called laicism” is the public recognition of Christ’s royal rights by individuals, families, and states. Báez, however, operates entirely within the Masonic framework condemned by the Syllabus of Pius IX. He speaks of “dictatorships,” “authoritarianism,” “human rights,” “justice,” and “the powerful” — the vocabulary of the Rights of Man (Error 77, 78, 79 of the Syllabus) — while remaining utterly silent on the Social Kingship of Christ, the duty of the State to profess the Catholic Faith, and the necessity of the Church’s freedom from civil power (Syllabus, Errors 19, 20, 55). His “cross” is the cross of the Sans-Culottes, not the Cross of Calvary.
Illegitimate Hierarchy: No Jurisdiction, No Mission, No Sacraments
The article casually notes that Báez was appointed auxiliary “bishop” in 2009 by “Pope” Francis and “confirmed in his role” in 2025 by “Pope” Leo XIV. From the perspective of integral Catholic theology, this is an admission of nullity. As the Defense of Sedevacantism file demonstrates, drawing on St. Robert Bellarmine, Wernz & Vidal, and Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code: a manifest heretic loses the papacy ipso facto, without any declaration. Bellarmine states: “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.” Paul IV’s Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio declares the promotion of a heretic “null, void, and of no effect.”
Since the line of usurpers beginning with John XXIII has publicly professed the heresies of Vatican II (religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the new Mass), they are not true popes. Consequently, Francis and Leo XIV possess no jurisdiction. A “bishop” consecrated by a layman (for such is a heretical “pope” reduced to) receives no sacramental character of the episcopate, and even if validly consecrated by a true bishop (impossible in the new rite of 1968), he would receive no jurisdiction from an antipope. Báez is, therefore, a private individual simulating the episcopate. His “Mass” in Miami is, at best, a Protestantized commemorative meal; at worst, idolatry. The “pastor and parochial vicar,” Fathers Somarriba and Román, are equally devoid of jurisdiction and likely of valid orders (new rite of 1968/1976). The faithful attending these assemblies are not assisting at the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary but participating in a liturgical simulation that Lamentabili Sane Exitu (Prop. 41, 45, 49) would recognize as the Modernist reduction of the sacraments to mere “reminders” of community.
The Modernist “Cross”: Evolution of Dogma into Political Activism
Báez’s explication of the Cross — “choosing a life like Jesus’, overcoming the fear of loving, loving without limits, and becoming weak and vulnerable out of love… humbling ourselves to enter the world of the poor and the victims” — is a textbook definition of the Modernist corruption condemned by St. Pius X. Lamentabili condemns the proposition: “Christ did not proclaim any specific, all-encompassing doctrine suitable for all times and peoples, but rather initiated a certain religious movement, applied or applicable to different times and places” (Prop. 59). Báez’s “cross” is precisely this: a vague, evolving “movement” of social engagement, detached from the objective, immutable truths of the Faith: the Trinity, the Incarnation, the Redemptive Sacrifice, the Necessity of the Church, the Sacraments, the Last Things.
The homily’s reference to “thinking like Peter” — “when we do not accept that there are moments in life when the only way to set things right is to go unnoticed, forget about ourselves, be the last, and sacrifice what we cherish most” — is a psychologized, subjectivist reading of Scripture. It replaces the objective necessity of the Cross for the remission of sin (Council of Trent, Sess. XXII) with a moralistic “self-forgetfulness” that serves the conciliar sect’s agenda of dialogue with the world. There is no mention of sin, grace, conversion, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the Virgin Mary, the Rosary, or the Final Judgment. This silence is the gravest accusation. As Pius XI warned in Quas Primas, “When God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” Báez removes God from the public order by refusing to name the Catholic State as the only legitimate polity, preferring the Masonic “human rights” framework.
The Masonic Dialectic: Dictatorship vs. Democracy, Both Anti-Christ
The article frames the Nicaraguan conflict as a battle between a “dictatorship” (Ortega-Murillo) and the “persecuted Church” (Báez, Francis, Leo XIV). This is a false dialectic, a strategem of the synagogue of Satan (Pius IX, Syllabus context). The Ortega regime is a Marxist-Leninist tyranny; the “Church” of Báez, Francis, and Leo XIV is the conciliar sect, the “abomination of desolation” (Matt 24:15) erected in the holy place. Both are enemies of the Reign of Christ the King. The regime persecutes the sect not because the sect is the Catholic Church, but because the sect retains a residual institutional presence that the Masonic state seeks to eliminate or co-opt. The sect, in turn, cries “religious freedom” — a right condemned by the Syllabus (Error 77, 78, 79) and Quas Primas — because it has abandoned the divine right of the Church to exclusive public profession and the duty of the State to repress error (Syllabus, Error 77).
The article cites the “Inter-American Court of Human Rights” (350 dead in 2018) as an authority. This is an organ of the Masonic globalist order (OAS), the very structure Pius XI identified as the fruit of laicism: “seeds of discord sown everywhere, flames of envy and hostility have engulfed nations.” Báez, by appealing to this tribunal, acknowledges its competence over the Church, betraying the libertas Ecclesiae (Syllabus, Errors 19, 20, 24, 27, 31, 49, 51).
False Apparitions and the Diversion from Apostasy
While the article does not mention Fatima, the modus operandi is identical to the False Fatima Apparitions analysis: “The message focuses on external threats (communism), omitting the main danger: modernist apostasy within the Church.” Báez focuses entirely on the external political enemy (Ortega), validating the conciliar sect’s narrative that the crisis is political persecution, not the auto-demolition of the Church (Paul VI) from within by the very “popes” and “bishops” who now pose as martyrs. The “consecration of Russia” distraction served to divert eyes from the Modernist rot in Rome; the “persecution in Nicaragua” narrative serves to canonize the conciliar hierarchy as “martyrs of democracy,” obscuring their apostasy.
Conclusion: A Sect of Humanitarianism, Not the Church of Christ
The NCR report is a hagiography of a usurper’s functionary. Báez is a pseudo-bishop of a pseudo-church, preaching a pseudo-cross to a pseudo-flock in a pseudo-parish. He possesses no jurisdiction (Bellarmine, Canon 188.4, Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), offers no true Sacrifice (Trent, Lamentabili Props. 41, 45), teaches a Modernist social gospel (St. Pius X, Pascendi/Lamentabili), and operates within a Masonic political framework condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus) and Pius XI (Quas Primas). The true Catholic response is not to cheer this “exiled bishop” but to recognize the vacancy of the Holy See since 1958, to reject the conciliar sect entirely, and to pray and work for the Restoration of All Things in Christ — the Social Kingship of Christ the King over nations, laws, and hearts — which alone brings the peace the world cannot give. Pax Christi in Regno Christi.
Source:
‘Worn-Out Dictatorships’ Never Speak of the Cross, Nicaragua’s Exiled Bishop Báez Says (ncregister.com)
Date: 02.09.2026