The Pillar, a digital organ of the conciliar sect, reports that the Diocese of Hong Kong has denounced its own coverage of a recent address by “Cardinal” Stephen Chow SJ in Rome as “regrettable,” insisting the Jesuit prelate’s intervention was a “moment of communion” rather than a “story of capitulation.” This dispute between two appendages of the neo-church perfectly encapsulates the crisis of authority and the theological bankruptcy of the post-conciliar establishment: a pseudo-journalistic outlet criticizes a collaborationist hierarchy for its surrender to the Chinese Communist Party, only to be rebuked by that same hierarchy for failing to celebrate the surrender as a mystical achievement.
The Lexicon of Betrayal: ‘Communion’ as Euphemism for Apostasy
The Hong Kong diocesan organ’s choice of vocabulary is not accidental; it is a calculated deployment of newspeak designed to invert the supernatural order. The term “moment of communion” is stripped of its theological density — communio sanctorum, unity in the una fides, the unum baptisma, the unum corpus of Christ (Eph 4:4-6) — and refashioned into a sociological category denoting diplomatic accommodation with the enemies of God.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches that “the Kingdom of Christ is spiritual and concerns spiritual things… it demands of its followers that they deny themselves and carry their cross” (Quas Primas, 1925). He warns that “when God and Jesus Christ were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (ibid.). The Hong Kong statement, by labeling a Jesuit’s performance before the Roman Curia of the usurper antipope as “communion,” implicitly confesses that the conciliar sect recognizes no King but Caesar — in this case, the Communist Party of China. The “communion” on offer is communio in malo, a unity forged in the rejection of Christus Rex and the embrace of Satanas princeps huius mundi (Jn 12:31).
The Pillar: A False Opposition Within the Same Apostasy
The Pillar’s posture of wounded journalistic integrity is a theatrum. It operates entirely within the paradigm of the neo-church, recognizing the usurper “Leo XIV” (Prevost) as legitimate, the “College of Cardinals” as canonical, and the “Synodal Church” as the vehicle of the Holy Ghost. Its criticism of Chow is not rooted in the integral Catholic Faith — the Social Reign of Christ the King, the condemnation of Communism as intrinsically perverse (Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937), the invalidity of the Vatican-China Provisional Agreement — but in a sectarian squabble over the management of the capitulation.
The Pillar represents the conservative wing of the Modernist synthesis: it wishes the surrender to be managed with more decorum, less ambiguity, and a veneer of “orthodoxy” to pacify the remnant of faithful Catholics whom the neo-church still exploits for donations and legitimacy. Its outrage is pharisaical; it strains at the gnat of “tone” while swallowing the camel of haeresis prave definita — the recognition of a schismatic, communist-controlled “patriotic church” as a legitimate interlocutor.
Cardinal Chow: The Jesuit as Quisling
Stephen Chow, SJ, appointed by the arch-heretic Bergoglio, is the persona ficta of the Ostpolitik of the conciliar sect. His speech in Rome — the content of which The Pillar teasingly summarizes but the diocese refuses to substantiate — serves one purpose: to normalize the betrayal of the Chinese martyrs. The “underground” Church in China, which preserved the integritas fidei at the cost of blood, prisons, and labor camps, is now instructed by a “Prince of the Church” that their suffering was a misunderstanding, that dialogue with the Great Red Dragon is the via regia of the Gospel.
This is the heresy of Action Française inverted: not the subordination of the Church to the Nation, but the subordination of the Church to the Party. The Syllabus of Pius IX condemns the proposition: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church” (Error 55). The Vatican-China deal, championed by Chow, does not separate them; it submerges the Church into the State, making the Ecclesia a department of the United Front Work Department. Chow’s “communion” is the kiss of Judas delivered with a Jesuitical smile.
The Theological Nullity of the Conciliar Episcopate
The Hong Kong diocese’s rebuttal inadvertently exposes the vacancy of the See. A true Bishop, a true Successor of the Apostles, cannot call collaboration with an atheistic, persecuting regime a “moment of communion.” St. Athanasius, St. John Fisher, St. Thomas More, the Martyrs of China (canonized by Pius XII in 1946 and 2000 by the usurper Wojtyła, but their sanctity rests on pre-1958 recognition of their odium fidei) — these men define communio. They died non communicantes with the powers of this world.
The “bishop” of Hong Kong (Chow) and his curia speak the language of the City of Man: “coverage,” “narrative,” “capitulation,” “regrettable.” They are mercenarii (Jn 10:12), not pastores. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code — ipso facto vacancy for public defection from the Faith — finds its grim verification in every syllable of their statement. By embracing the Vatican II heresy of religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and false ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), they have de facto severed themselves from the Corpus Mysticum. Their “communion” is the communio daemoniorum (1 Cor 10:20).
The Miracle of the Sun: A Diversion, Not a Sign
While the article does not mention Fatima, the modus operandi of the conciliar sect in China mirrors the Fatima operation exposed in theological critique: a Masonic psychological operation diverting attention from the apostasia ab intra. Just as the “consecration of Russia” was used to obscure the modernist infiltration of the hierarchy (St. Pius X, Pascendi, 1907), the “Vatican-China dialogue” obscures the total surrender of the Faith in Hong Kong and the mainland. The “miracle” here is not solar but political: the transformation of the Bride of Christ into a concubine of the Party, hailed as “synodality.”
Conclusion: No King But Caesar
The dispute between The Pillar and the Hong Kong diocese is a ludus scenicus played out on the stage of the abomination of desolation (Mt 24:15). Both parties accept the presupposition of the Revolution: that the “pope” in Rome is the Vicar of Christ, that the “bishops” in communion with him possess jurisdiction, that the “Church” is a human institution negotiable with states.
The only veritas is the Social Kingship of Christ proclaimed by Pius XI: “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ” (Quas Primas). The Chinese Communist Party is subject to Christ the King. The “Cardinal” Chow is subject to Christ the King. The “Pope” Prevost is subject to Christ the King. Their refusal to confess this Kingship — their active collaboration with its enemies — places them extra Ecclesiam.
The faithful in Hong Kong, in China, in Rome, and everywhere must non communicare with this synagoga Satanae (Rev 2:9). They must cleave to the Tradition of the Fathers, the Mass of All Time, the Bishops and Priests who retain valid Orders and Catholic Faith without admixture of Modernism. Quo vadis? Not to the “moment of communion” with the Antichrist, but to the Calvary where the King of Kings reigns from the Cross.
Christus vincit, Christus regnat, Christus imperat.
Source:
HK diocese calls coverage of Cardinal Chow speech ‘regrettable’ (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 11.11.2026