The Apostasy of “Peter’s” Freedom: Rejecting Christ’s Reign for Naturalistic Humanism
Summary of the Modernist Narrative
The Vatican News portal reports that “Pope Leo XIV” met with the Pro Petri Sede Association, a group tracing its lineage to the Papal Zouaves who defended the Papal States. The antipope praised their charitable work, rejected any use of violence to defend the papacy, and declared that the Successor of Peter must have “total freedom to speak the truth, denounce injustice, defend the rights of the weakest, promote peace, and above all to proclaim Jesus Christ.” This statement, dripping with naturalistic humanism, is presented as a prophetic mission for our times. The core thesis is this: the article reveals a catastrophic inversion where the papacy’s mission is reduced to a generic, secular advocacy for human rights and peace, utterly divorced from the supernatural reign of Christ the King over individuals, families, and nations as defined by the pre-1958 Magisterium. It is the precise fulfillment of the errors condemned by Pope Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors and the abandonment of the mission for which Pope Pius XI instituted the feast of Christ the King in Quas Primas.
1. Factual Level: The Usurper Speaks for a Vacant See
The entire premise rests on a fundamental falsehood: the assumption that “Pope Leo XIV” is a legitimate Successor of Peter. The theological and canonical arguments for the sedevacantist position, grounded in the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, demonstrate that a manifest heretic cannot be pope. The post-conciliar “popes,” beginning with John XXIII, have promulgated the heresies of Modernism, religious liberty, and ecumenism—errors solemnly condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu and Pascendi Dominici gregis. Therefore, the See of Peter is vacant. The “Bishop of Rome” addressing the Pro Petri Sede Association is an impostor, and his words carry the authority of a false prophet. The Association’s historical connection to the Zouaves, who fought for the temporal sovereignty of the Holy See—a sovereignty Pius IX defended and which Pius XI’s Syllabus declares the Church has a right to (cf. errors 19-27)—makes their current pacifist, secularist stance a profound betrayal of their own heritage. They now serve a modernist “see” that has abandoned the very cause their ancestors defended.
2. Linguistic and Rhetorical Level: The Language of Naturalism and Apostasy
The antipope’s language is a masterclass in conciliar ambiguity and naturalistic humanism. Phrases like “total freedom to speak the truth,” “defend the rights of the weakest,” and “promote peace” are stripped of all supernatural content. They echo the language of the United Nations or secular NGOs, not of the Vicar of Christ. The phrase “proclaim Jesus Christ who died and rose again, the only possible horizon for a reconciled humanity” is a particularly insidious piece of rhetoric. It presents Christ not as the King whose law must govern societies, but as a vague “horizon” for a “reconciled humanity”—a concept of peace that is purely horizontal, social, and immanent, devoid of the necessity of the social reign of Christ and the subordination of all human authority to His divine law. This is the “peace” of the world, not the pax Christi in the Kingdom of Christ. The silence on conversion, baptism, the exclusive salvific role of the Catholic Church, and the duty of states to publicly worship Christ and enact His laws is deafening. It is the silence of apostasy.
3. Theological Level: A Complete Rejection of Christ the King
The article’s omissions are its most damning feature. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, established the feast of Christ the King as a direct remedy against the “plague” of secularism (laicism) which had removed Christ from public life. He wrote: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed… the entire human society had to be shaken.” The antipope’s speech contains not a single reference to this doctrine. Instead of calling for the public recognition of Christ’s royal authority by rulers and states, he speaks of a “freedom” that is inherently rebellious against God’s law. Pius XI explicitly stated that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses all men” and that rulers must “publicly honor Christ and obey Him,” warning that He “will very severely avenge these insults” at the final judgment. The antipope’s vision is the exact opposite: a papacy that is “free” from any such demanding, universal call to sovereignty, reduced to a moralizing voice within a pluralistic, godless world order. This is the “hermeneutics of continuity” in action: the “Church” now preaches a “Christ” who is compatible with the secular state, a Christ who does not reign but merely offers a “horizon.”
The antipope’s rejection of violence to defend the papacy is also a direct contradiction of the Church’s traditional doctrine on the indirect power of the Church over temporal matters and the right of a sovereign pontiff to defend the Papal States. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the proposition that “the Church has not the power of using force, nor has she any temporal power, direct or indirect” (Error 24) and that “the immunity of the Church… derived its origin from civil law” (Error 30). The Zouaves fought precisely because the Papal States, as a temporal sovereignty, were a necessary guarantee of the Pope’s freedom from secular domination. The antipope’s statement that there is “no question of fighting with weapons” capitulates entirely to the modern principle of the separation of Church and State, condemned by the Syllabus (Error 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”). He praises Pius IX for refusing bloodshed in 1870, a event that represented the catastrophic loss of the Papal States and the beginning of the “Roman Question”—a loss the Church never accepted as legitimate. This is not prophetic humility; it is the theology of defeat, accepting the secularist narrative that the Church’s temporal power was a medieval error.
4. Symptomatic Level: The Conciliar Revolution in Microcosm
This audience is a perfect microcosm of the post-conciliar revolution. The Pro Petri Sede Association, once dedicated to defending the temporal rights of the See of Peter, now contentedly receives a blessing from an antipope while he preaches a message that would have been condemned by their 19th-century predecessors. The transformation is complete: from defenders of a societas perfecta (a perfect society) with its own rights against the state, to fundraisers for a charitable project in Peru, operating within the framework of a “papacy” that has no temporal authority and preaches only spiritualized, social Gospel. This is the “new evangelization” in action: the Church becomes a mere NGO, a “field hospital” for the poor, while the kingship of Christ over nations and laws is relegated to an optional, private devotion. The antipope’s mention of “prayer” as the primary support for his work reduces the Church’s militant, public role to a private, spiritual activity—a key tenet of Modernism condemned by St. Pius X, which seeks to make religion a matter of personal sentiment, not public, objective law.
5. The Sedevacantist Conclusion: A Call to Repudiate the Abomination
Theologically, this article is bankrupt. It presents a “Peter” who is “free” to speak a truth that is not the Catholic Faith. It promotes a “peace” that is not the peace of Christ’s reign but the peace of the Antichrist, who will also promise worldly peace while denying Christ (2 Thess 2:3-4). It defends “the weakest” while the souls of billions are perishing for lack of the true faith, which is the only true defense. The Syllabus of Errors condemns the very spirit of this speech: the idea that the Church should be subordinate to civil power (Errors 19-27), that civil liberty of all worship is good (Error 79), and that the Pope should “reconcile himself… with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Error 80). The antipope does precisely this, presenting a “freedom” that is the freedom of the Church from her divine mission to convert nations and rule them in the order of justice.
The only Catholic response is total repudiation. The true Catholic faith, as held before the revolution of Vatican II, demands that we recognize the vacancy of the Holy See due to the manifest heresy of the conciliar “popes.” It demands that we uphold the social reign of Christ the King as taught by Pius XI and Leo XIII, a reign that requires the submission of all human authority to the law of God as taught by the Church. It demands that we reject the naturalistic, human-rights-based “freedom” of the modernists and instead pray and work for the restoration of the Catholic social order, where the State publicly recognizes Jesus Christ as its King and legislates in conformity with His law. The Pro Petri Sede Association, in lending any support to this antipope, becomes complicit in the greatest crime in history: the apostasy of the Vatican itself. They are not heirs to the Zouaves; they are heirs to the modernists who handed the Papal States over to the revolution. The only “freedom” worth having is the freedom of the Church from the captivity of the neo-church, and the only “peace” worth promoting is the peace that comes from the public and solemn recognition of Christus Rex.
Source:
Pope: Successor of Peter must be free to speak truth, promote peace (vaticannews.va)
Date: 18.02.2026