The Pillar portal publishes an interview with the “Cardinal” Jaime Spengler, OFM, “Archbishop” of Porto Alegre and president of the Brazilian and Latin American “episcopal conferences,” on the occasion of the 800th anniversary of the death of St. Francis of Assisi. The modernist prelate presents the Seraphic Father as a “profoundly human archetype” and prophet of “integral ecology,” stripping the Saint of his supernatural mission to conform him to the naturalistic, ecumenical, and anthropocentric agenda of the conciliar sect. This operation constitutes a brazen falsification of the *Alter Christus*, reducing the *Poverello* of Assisi—who sought only to conform himself to the Crucified—to a mere forerunner of the Masonic “universal brotherhood” championed by the usurpers in the Vatican.
The Naturalistic Reduction of the Seraphic Father to a “Human Archetype”
The interview opens with a categorical error that betrays the entire modernist hermeneutic: Spengler declares St. Francis to be a “human archetype” who “goes beyond the boundaries of the Franciscan world, of the Catholic Church, and even of Christianity” and is a “universal man.” This is the quintessence of the *nouvelle théologie* condemned by Pius XII in *Humani Generis*: the substitution of the supernatural order for a vague, immanent “humanism.” St. Francis is not an “archetype”; he is a *Saint*, a citizen of the *Civitas Dei*, whose sole relevance lies in his perfect conformity to *Christ the King*. As Pius XI teaches in *Quas Primas*, “Christ reigns in the minds of men… because He Himself is Truth, and men must draw truth from Him and accept it obediently.” To present the Saint of the Stigmata as a generic “human” figure accessible to pagans, Muslims, and atheists alike is to deny the very principle of his sanctity: *gratia supponit naturam et perficit eam* (grace supposes nature and perfects it). The “pressing demand” Spengler identifies is not for a “human archetype,” but for the *restitutio omnium in Christo*—the restoration of all things in Christ—which the conciliar sect has abandoned for the building of the *Civitas Hominis*.
“Integral Ecology”: The Pantheistic Subversion of the Kingship of Christ
The core of Spengler’s discourse is the identification of St. Francis with the “integral ecology” of the antipope Francis’s *Laudato si’*. He cites the *Canticle of the Creatures* (“Brother Sun, Sister Water…”) as proof that “everything is interconnected,” equating the Saint’s poetic personification of creation with the modernist dogma of a horizontal, immanent “family of God” encompassing nature. This is a diabolical inversion. St. Francis called creatures “brother” and “sister” not because they share a divine essence with man (pantheism), but because they share a *common Creator* whom they glorify by their very existence. The Saint’s ecology was *theocentric*, not *biocentric*; it was an act of *latria* redirected to the Creator through the creature.
Spengler’s “integral ecology” is the baptism of the Masonic “Great Work”—the divinization of matter and the dethronement of Christ. Pius XI explicitly condemned this trajectory in *Quas Primas*: “It began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations… then, slowly, the Christian religion began to be equated with other false religions… further still went those who conceived that the divine religion should be replaced by a natural religion, a natural inner impulse.” The “ecological crisis” Spengler laments is the direct fruit of the *laicism* and *secularism* condemned by the Syllabus of Pius IX (Errors 39, 55, 77), which the conciliar sect has enshrined as “religious freedom.” The remedy is not “care for our common home” as a survival strategy, but the *Social Kingship of Christ*: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (*Quas Primas*, citing *Ubi Arcano*). Spengler offers the *Canticle* as a palliative for a world dying of apostasy; the Church offers the *Cross* as the only ladder to heaven.
The Sultan Encounter: False Ecumenism Masquerading as Evangelization
Perhaps the most egregious distortion concerns the meeting with the Sultan. Spengler admits the historical fact—”his intention wasn’t interreligious dialogue — it was to preach the Gospel and convert the sultan”—only to immediately subvert it with the standard modernist bait-and-switch: “our responsibility is… to go out and meet the other, not in order to ‘proselytize’ them, but to show what animates me.” Here the *mandatum divinum* (“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations… baptizing them,” Mt 28:19) is replaced by the Masonic “dialogue” condemned by Pius XI in *Mortalium Animos* and by the Syllabus (Error 16: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation”).
The term “proselytize” is used here as a pejorative, a trademark of the Bergoglian/Leo XIV antipapacy, to criminalize the *missio ad gentes*. St. Francis risked martyrdom to convert the Sultan to the *one true Faith*; Spengler proposes a “meeting” where the “other” is confirmed in his error, provided the encounter is “objective, clear, attractive, and profoundly human.” This is the *heresy of indifferentism* (Syllabus, Error 18: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion…”), applied now to Islam and paganism. The “conversions” Spengler vaguely references (“lapsed Catholics,” “people from other faiths… without confrontation”) are the fruit of *human persuasion*, not the *supernatural grace* operating through the *sacramental ministry* of the true Church. *Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus* remains the dogma; the conciliar sect’s “dialogue” is the wide gate leading to destruction (Mt 7:13).
The Liturgical Question: Dismissal of Lex Orandi as “Ideology”
When confronted with the liturgical chaos—directly caused by the Novus Ordo Missae of the pseudo-Paul VI—Spengler deploys the standard gaslighting tactic of the neo-clergy: “The main issue isn’t the liturgy. The main issue is the sense of belonging to the ecclesial community.” He claims the liturgy is “used ideologically for other interests… not authentically motivated by the Gospel.” This is a manifest lie. The *lex orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi* is the immutable law of the Church. The Novus Ordo, fabricated by the Freemason Bugnini and his committee, *is* the ideological weapon: it manifests a Protestantized theology (memorial vs. sacrifice, assembly vs. priesthood, table vs. altar). To defend the *Tridentine Mass*—the *Missale Romanum* codified by St. Pius V *Quo Primum Tempore*—is not “ideology”; it is the defense of the *Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary* and the *Real Presence* against the “table of assembly” where the “presider” faces the people.
Spengler’s “sense of belonging to the ecclesial community” is the ecclesiology of *Lumen Gentium* 8 (“subsistit in”), which replaces the *Una, Sancta, Catholica, Apostolica* Church with a sociological “People of God.” True fidelity to the Gospel demands *rejection* of the liturgical reform that embodies the “abomination of desolation” in the holy place. The “divided Church” Spengler laments is divided precisely because the conciliar sect has severed the *lex orandi* from the *lex credendi*. The true faithful, adhering to the *Sedes Vacans* reality, keep the *Mass of All Time* because it is the *sine qua non* of Catholic identity, not a “preference.”
Franciscan Philosophy: Modernist “Dialogue” Over Thomistic Certitude
Spengler’s praise for the “Franciscan philosophical-theological school” (Bonaventure, Scotus) serves a Modernist end: the relativization of *Thomism* as the *perennial philosophy* of the Church. He claims “Thomas Aquinas came to prevail, even through an institutional endorsement of sorts,” dismissing the *Doctor Communis* as a historical accident. He advocates for a “broader, more open dialogue with all the currents… that mark the history of the West,” including “the moderns, the contemporaries.” This is the error of *Modernism* condemned in *Lamentabili Sane Exitu* (Prop. 58: “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him”; Prop. 64: “The progress of sciences requires a reform of the concept of Christian doctrine…”).
St. Pius X mandated Thomism as the *norma* for theological study precisely to guard against the “disintegrated times” Spengler mentions. The “Franciscan intuition” of *potuit, decuit, ergo fecit* (He could, it was fitting, therefore He did it) regarding the Immaculate Conception is a *theological conclusion* grounded in the *principle of fittingness*, not a standalone “intuition” detached from the *analogia entis* perfected by St. Thomas. To pit Scotus against Aquinas is the tactic of the *Modernist* who seeks to dissolve the *depositum fidei* into a flux of “schools” and “dialogues.” The “integrated whole” Spengler seeks is found only in the *Summa Theologiae*, not in the Babel of post-conciliar “philosophical reflection.”
False Obedience: “Fidelity” to the Usurper of the See of Peter
The interview concludes with the supreme deception: Spengler boasts of the Franciscan “fidelity to the Church… respect and reverence for the figure of the Successor of Peter.” This “fidelity” is rendered to the line of antipopes beginning with John XXIII—manifest heretics who have publicly defected from the Catholic Faith (Canon 188.4, 1917 Code; *Cum ex Apostolatus Officio*; Bellarmine, *De Romano Pontifice*). As the *Defense of Sedevacantism* file demonstrates, a manifest heretic *ipso facto* loses all jurisdiction and membership in the Church: “A non-Christian in no way can be Pope… a manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope” (Bellarmine).
The “Successor of Peter” to whom Spengler renders “reverence” is currently Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), a usurper occupying the Vatican *sede impedita* (or rather, *sede vacans* since 1958). The “ecclesial communion” Spengler demands is communion with the *abomination of desolation*, the “synagogue of Satan” (Pius IX, Syllabus context) that has erected the “paramasonic structure” in Rome. True Franciscan fidelity—exemplified by the *Spirituals* persecuted by the worldly hierarchy of their day—would demand *resistance* to the destroyers of the Faith, not submission to their “synodal” tyranny. St. Francis threw himself before the Pope *Honorius III* to beg approval for his Rule; Spengler kneels before the *antipope* to beg approval for the *destruction* of the Rule of Faith.
The Anthropological Crisis: The Conciliar Sect’s Inability to Address the Supernatural
The “anthropological crisis” Spengler diagnoses is real, but his diagnosis is satanic. The crisis is not a lack of “care for creation” or “human archetypes”; it is the *loss of the supernatural end*. Man is created *ad imaginem Dei* for the *Visio Beatifica*. The conciliar sect, by denying *Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus*, by promoting *religious liberty*, by offering a “Eucharist” that is invalid (new form, new “priests” ordained in the invalid *Pontificale Romanum* of 1968), has cut the faithful off from the *sources of grace*. Spengler’s “well of fresh water” is a cistern that holds no water (Jer 2:13). The true “Franciscan” response today is not to celebrate 800 years of a domesticated saint in the neo-church’s basilicas, but to *flee* the “abomination of desolation,” adhere to the *Sedes Vacans* bishops and priests who retain valid Orders and the True Mass, and cry out with the Seraphic Father: “*My God and my All!*”—rejecting the “all” of the world, the flesh, and the devil that the conciliar sect has baptized as “integral ecology.”
Source:
St. Francis: ‘The pressing demand of a profoundly human archetype’ (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 30.09.2026