The EWTN News portal reports that Bishop Carlos García, President of the Peruvian Episcopal Conference, announced an 80% probability of antipope Leo XIV visiting Peru between November and December 2026, with Chiclayo—where the antipope formerly served as diocesan administrator—being the “most certain stop” (February 9, 2026). The article describes emotional meetings during the Peruvian bishops’ recent ad limina visit to Rome, where García claims the Vatican usurper “lit up” when discussing Peru and keeps an image of the Lord of Miracles for daily prayers. Preparations will begin in March despite no official confirmation, with García urging Peruvians to prepare spiritually for this “visit marked by hope.”
Canonical Nullity of Conciliar “Ad Limina” Rites
The very premise of Peruvian bishops conducting an ad limina apostolorum visit to a Vatican occupier constitutes sacrilege against Canon 1405 of the 1917 Code, which reserves papal jurisdiction exclusively to valid Roman Pontiffs. St. Robert Bellarmine’s De Romano Pontifice (II,30) establishes that “manifest heretics automatically lose all jurisdiction” without need of declaration—a principle reaffirmed by Pius XII’s Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis (1945). The conciliar sect’s theatrical recreation of ancient Catholic practices mirrors the abusus non tollit usum heresy condemned by Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (1794), where counterfeit sacraments become vehicles of apostasy rather than grace. García’s description of feeling “like we were in Peru while being in Rome” exposes the neo-modernist dissolution of ecclesial reality into subjective emotional experiences—precisely what Pius X condemned in Pascendi as “vital immanence replacing objective revelation.”
Naturalistic Paganism Disguised as Pastoral Care
The entire narrative framework reduces religion to psychological manipulation and geographical sentimentality. Emphasis on the antipope allegedly “lighting up” when discussing Peru and keeping devotional objects constitutes pure Feuerbachian projection—reducing divine worship to human emotional needs, condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos as “indifferentism.” Nowhere does the article mention the sine qua non conditions for valid sacraments or canonical governance, instead promoting a Gnostic “spirit of the visit” detached from doctrinal content. This follows the conciliar playbook of Paul VI, who declared in Manila (1970): “The Church is made with human faces”—heretical anthropocentrism denying the divine constitution of the Church as Christ’s Mystical Body. The planned “spiritual preparation” for the visit dangerously mimics pagan rituals anticipating idol processions, contrary to the Council of Trent’s decree De Reformatione on avoiding “all appearance of superstition.”
Theological Implications of Chiclayo’s Centrality
The obsession with Chiclayo as the antipope’s former administrative district reveals the conciliar sect’s fundamentally bureaucratic ecclesiology. Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi (1943) expressly condemned the error that “the Church is a human invention” reducible to administrative structures. Yet García’s certainty about the Chiclayo visit demonstrates how the conciliar sect operates as a personality cult centered on the Vatican occupier—a direct violation of St. Paul’s warning against “followers of Kephas” (1 Cor 1:12). The planned logistical preparations in March, prior to official confirmation, expose the Masonic modus operandi of creating facts on the ground to pressure compliance—a tactic denounced in Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus as “the craft of the enemies of God.”
Omission of Grave Spiritual Dangers
Nowhere does the article warn faithful Catholics that attendance at antipapal events constitutes material cooperation with schism, forbidden by Canon 1258 §1. It remains silent on how conciliar “masses” in Peru—following the invalid Missale Pauli VI—cannot fulfill Sunday obligations, as established by St. Pius V’s Quo Primum. Most grievously, there is no mention of mortal sin incurred through sacrilegious reception of “communion” under invalid rites—a direct violation of the Council of Trent’s anathema against those claiming “Christians are free to receive communion in either kind” (Session XXI, Canon 1). This deliberate silence implements the modernist strategy described in Pius X’s Lamentabili (Proposition 23): “The Church cannot define the proper sense of Scripture.”
The Peruvian bishops’ theatrical anticipation of the Vatican occupier’s visit confirms their complete absorption into the conciliar apostasy. As St. Augustine warned in Contra Litteras Petiliani, “What is the crime of schism if not to abandon unity?” True Catholics must recall Pius XI’s command in Mortalium Animos: “The Catholic Church alone preserves true worship… the Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in assemblies of non-Catholics.” Until the Roman See is freed from modernist occupation, Peru’s faithful must avoid all communion with the conciliar counter-church and its blasphemous spectacles.
Source:
His former diocese ‘most likely place’ on itinerary if Pope Leo XIV visits Peru (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 09.02.2026