The Pillar portal reports on November 12, 2026, that the usurper antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) has arrived in Peru after a stop in Argentina, where he was filmed singing along to Latin American contemporary hymns such as “Alma Misionera” and “Pescadores de Hombres.” The dispatch, penned by Edgar Beltrán, attempts to justify this liturgical degradation by appealing to personal nostalgia, the alleged holiness of a “Catholic reggaeton singer” priest, and the emotional utility of such music for youth in “one of the most secularized countries in Latin America.” The author calls for a “long, synodal conversation on liturgical music” rather than adherence to the Church’s immutable legislation. This spectacle confirms that the conciliar sect’s “liturgy” is nothing more than a Protestantized, anthropocentric concert designed to manufacture religious sentiment in the absence of the sacrum.
The Antipope as Entertainer-in-Chief: Reduction of the Papacy to a Pop-Culture Icon
The sight of a claimant to the Chair of Peter singing “from the top of his lungs” to Latin American liturgical pop hymns is not a mere anecdote; it is the logical terminus of the conciliar revolution’s destruction of the papal office. The article presents this behavior as endearing authenticity: “Unsurprisingly, the pope knows these hymns as well as your average Latin American parish priest, because that’s what he was for almost half his ordained ministry.” This admission reveals the fatal flaw: the man elected by the modernist conclave is not a successor of St. Peter formed in the schola romana, but a functionary of the neo-church’s inculturation agenda.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, teaches that the Church’s liturgy exists to “instruct men in the truths of faith and elevating them through them to the joy of inner life” and that feasts and rites are instituted “when the people were to be strengthened in common danger or confirmed against the snares of heretical errors.” The antipope’s performance does the opposite: it lowers the supernatural to the natural, the divine to the human, the mysterium tremendum to a sing-along. The author’s delight that the antipope joins “two million young people in telling the Lord ‘I am up to whatever You ask of me'” exposes the Pelagian core of the neo-church’s spirituality: a focus on human generosity and emotional availability rather than on the opus Dei, the propitiatory Sacrifice of Calvary made present on the altar.
The Heresy of “Liturgical Taste” and the Denial of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi
Beltrán’s rhetoric is saturated with the subjectivism condemned by St. Pius X in Tra le sollecitudini (1903) and Pius XII in Musicae Sacrae Disciplina (1955). He speaks of his “complicated relationship with Latin American liturgical pop hymns,” his “traditional sensibility,” and his judgment that some songs “may not align perfectly with my liturgical sensibility.” This language treats the sacred liturgy as a matter of personal aesthetic preference rather than objective theological law.
The author writes: “Hymns like ‘Alma Misionera’… are not in the same league as liturgical reggaeton. They’re not Gregorian chant either, but they can suitably be used in a liturgy and even accompanied exclusively by organ.” This is the hermeneutic of rupture masquerading as moderation. St. Pius X declared: “Gregorian Chant is… the supreme model of sacred music… The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes.” (Tra le sollecitudini, §3). There is no “middle ground” between the chant of the Roman Church and the profane rhythms of the world. The Syllabus of Errors (Pius IX, 1864) condemns the proposition that “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood, and of good and evil” (Error 3). Beltrán makes his own reason and sentiment the arbiter of liturgical fitness.
The “Holy Reggaeton Priest”: Sentimentalism as Substitute for Sanctity
The most damning passage is the author’s defense of his former parish priest, a “Catholic reggaeton singer” deemed “one of the holiest men I’ve ever met” because he “saved hundreds or thousands from lives of drug, crime, addiction, and sin.” This is the cult of man condemned by Pius XI in Quas Primas: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.”
Salvation is not effected by social work or emotional manipulation through profane music, but by the gratia sanctificans conferred through the valid Sacraments administered by valid priests in the true Church. The author’s utilitarian calculus—“It would be rather ridiculous of me to judge him for his liturgical taste”—is the voice of the neo-church’s new morality: pastoral effectiveness trumps liturgical law; sentiment trumps truth. This is the Modernist error condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu (Prop. 26): “The dogmas of faith should be understood according to their practical function, i.e., as binding in action, rather than as principles of belief.” Here, the liturgical law (a disciplinary expression of dogmatic truth) is discarded for perceived pastoral utility.
The “Synodal Conversation”: Modernist Collegiality Replacing Immutable Law
Beltrán concludes: “A long, synodal conversation on liturgical music in Latin America, and guidance from bishops and the Holy See, is much needed.” This is a direct attack on the potestas magisterii and potestas ordinis. The liturgy is not a matter for “conversation” or democratic discernment (synodalitas), but for obedientia to the lex orandi established by the Church’s immutable Tradition. Pius XII, in Mediator Dei (1947), warned: “It is not for private individuals to regulate the sacred liturgy… The Church is the sole guardian of the liturgy.” The call for a “synodal conversation” is the standard modernist tactic to legitimize the introduction of novelty under the guise of “dialogue,” effectively denying that the Church already possesses the fullness of liturgical truth in the Roman Rite codified by St. Pius V and protected by the Canon Missae.
Argentina: The Laboratory of the Anti-Liturgy
The article notes the antipope’s prior days in Argentina, “the homeland of his predecessor, Pope Francis.” This is the epicenter of the liturgical revolution: the land of the “Misa Criolla,” of liturgical dance, of the cancionero movement that replaced the Graduale Romanum with folk songs. The antipope’s ease with this repertoire confirms his formation in the school of the neo-church’s liturgical deformation. The author admits Argentina is “one of the most secularized countries in Latin America.” The correlation is undeniable: where the sacred is profaned, faith dies. The Quas Primas remedy—“the public veneration of Christ the King… to address the needs of the present times and provide a special remedy against the plague that poisons human society… the secularism of our times, so-called laicism”—is rejected in favor of the very “laicism” that infects the liturgy with worldly rhythms.
Theological Bankruptcy: No Mention of the Sacrifice, the Real Presence, or the Priesthood
Read the dispatch again. There is zero mention of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Real Presence, the propitiatory nature of the Victim, the priest acting in persona Christi, or the Canon Missae. The entire focus is on hymns, singing, emotional connection, youth engagement, and “serving.” This silence is the gravissima accusatio. A true Catholic report on a papal trip would center on the Actio Christi in the Sacrum Concilium of the Mass. The neo-church’s “dispatches” report on the actio hominis in the assembly of the people. This is the Protestantization of the liturgy warned against by the Council of Trent (Sess. XXII, Can. 1): “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and proper sacrifice is not offered to God… let him be anathema.” The antipope’s concert is the liturgy of the “People of God” as horizontal community, not the Cultus Divinus of the Ecclesia Militans.
Symptomatic Diagnosis: The Neo-Church as “Abomination of Desolation” in the Holy Place
This article is not an aberration; it is the modus operandi of the conciliar sect. The replacement of Sacrosanctum Concilium‘s mandate for Gregorian Chant (SC §116) with “liturgical pop”; the substitution of the lex orandi with “synodal conversation”; the elevation of sentimental utility over dogmatic truth—these are the identical errors of the Modernist program condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907): “They aim at such a development of dogmas as appears to be their corruption.” The antipope Leo XIV, by validating this musical degradation with his presence and voice, confirms his role as the chief architect of the abominatio desolationis standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15).
The faithful who retain the sensus catholicus must recognize that no true Pope, no valid Bishop, no priest of the eternal High Priesthood of Christ, would ever participate in such a profanation. The Defense of Sedevacantism demonstrates that a manifest heretic “by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head… by which things he may be judged and punished by the Church” (St. Robert Bellarmine). The antipope’s liturgical infidelity is the external manifestation of his internal apostasy. The structures occupying the Vatican are a “paramasonic structure” (per the False Fatima Apparitions analysis of Masonic operations) designed to dismantle the Church from within, and the “liturgical pop concert” is merely the latest, most visible brick in that wall of separation from Christ the King.
Non possumus. The true Church, hidden in the catacombs of Tradition, continues to offer the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary in the Roman Rite of St. Pius V, with Gregorian Chant as its proper voice, awaiting the restoration of all things in Christ (Instaurare omnia in Christo), when the usurpers will be cast down and the Social Reign of Christ the King proclaimed by Pius XI will be realized.
Source:
Dispatches: In Peru with Pope Leo (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 12.11.2026