The Apostasy of “Pastoral Innovation”: Leo XIV’s Dialogue as a Manifestation of the Conciliar Sect’s Theological Bankruptcy
The cited article from Vatican News (February 20, 2026) reports on a closed-door meeting between the antipope Leo XIV and a select group of presbyters from the Diocese of Rome. The dialogue, framed as an open and sincere exchange, reveals a profound and deliberate abandonment of Catholic supernatural principles in favor of a secular, humanistic, and utterly modernist approach to the priesthood and pastoral care. The so-called “Pope” offers advice on engaging youth, avoiding artificial intelligence in homily preparation, combating “clerical envy,” and bearing witness to the value of life amidst the euthanasia crisis. Each point, when measured against the immutable, integral Catholic faith that reigned supreme before the revolution of Vatican II, exposes not merely error but a complete inversion of the Church’s divine mission. The fundamental assumption of the entire encounter—that a valid Roman Pontiff would engage in such vague, psychological, and doctrinally subversive chatter—is itself the primary evidence of the sede vacante. The man occupying the Vatican is a heretic and an apostate, and his words are the fruit of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place.
1. The “Human Experience” Heresy: Reducing the Supernatural to the Natural
The core of Leo XIV’s pastoral methodology is the prioritization of “human experience of friendship” and “knowing their reality as deeply as possible.” He states, “Getting to know others is the key element… knowledge comes through a human experience of friendship.” This is a direct and damning repudiation of the Church’s primary mission: the salvation of souls. The Encyclical Quas Primas of Pope Pius XI (1925) establishes the absolute foundation: the Kingdom of Christ is primarily spiritual and relates mainly to spiritual matters. The purpose of the Incarnation and the Church is to reconcile man to God, to free souls from the slavery of sin and the devil. Leo XIV’s focus on “coldness” and “isolation” solved through “sharing” and “communion” (understood in a purely human, psychological sense) is the precise naturalistic humanism condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. Error #58 declares: “All the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.” While not about riches, Leo XIV’s program places the “rectitude and excellence” of pastoral work in the accumulation of human relationships and the gratification of human experience, divorcing it entirely from its supernatural end. The soul’s battle against concupiscence, the necessity of actual grace, the horror of mortal sin—these are the “spiritual matters” of Quas Primas. They are utterly absent. The silence is deafening and damning. The priest is reduced to a social worker, a friend, a community organizer—a role any atheist could fulfill. The unique, indispensable role of the Catholic priest as an alter Christus, a minister of sacraments which confer grace ex opere operato, is nowhere mentioned. This is the “evolution of dogmas” in action: the dogma of the supernatural end of man is silently replaced by the dogma of human self-fulfillment.
2. The Idolatry of “Inculturation” and the Rejection of the Social Kingship of Christ
Leo XIV insists on offering a service that is “inculturated in the place, in the parish where we are working.” This term, “inculturation,” is a post-conciliar buzzword for the synthesis of Catholicism with pagan customs and modern errors, a direct violation of the Church’s duty to convert cultures to Christ, not to be converted by them. Pope Pius XI, in Quas Primas, quoting his predecessor Leo XIII, states unequivocally: “His reign… extends not only to Catholic nations… but His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The duty of the state and society is to publicly recognize this reign and order laws accordingly. Leo XIV’s “inculturation” is the exact opposite: it is the surrender of Christ’s royal dignity to the “culture” of postmodern isolation, drug use, and violence. He tells priests to “go out into the streets with them,” not to preach the immutable moral law and call for repentance, but to share in their “terrible life” as a precursor to inviting them to “know Jesus.” This is the “national conversion without evangelization” derided in the analysis of the Fatima apparitions file—a focus on external, social integration while omitting the internal, doctrinal conversion. It is the triumph of the “hermeneutics of continuity” in practice: the idea that the Church must change her message to fit the world, rather than the world being changed by the message. The Syllabus of Errors, #39, condemns the notion that “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.” Leo XIV’s entire pastoral model accepts the modern state’s secularist premise as a given, operating only within the “limits” set by a culture that has expelled Christ from public life. The priest’s role is not to demand the restoration of the Social Kingship of Christ—the feast of which Pius XI instituted precisely to combat secularism—but to quietly minister within the ghetto of a faith privatized and rendered irrelevant to public life.
3. The Superficiality of “Warning” Against AI While Ignoring the Apostate “Mass”
The antipope’s warning against using Artificial Intelligence for homilies is presented as a profound pastoral insight. “To give a true homily is to share faith… AI will never be able to share faith.” On the surface, this seems reasonable. However, it is a classic modernist tactic: to condemn a peripheral, futuristic error while remaining utterly silent on the central, catastrophic error that defines the current crisis. The “homily” in the post-conciliar “Mass of Paul VI” is often a mere commentary on the readings, stripped of its sacrificial context. But the far greater sacrilege is the “Mass” itself, which, as documented by countless theologians, has been altered to the point of being an invalid or at least a highly dubious liturgical act that no longer clearly presents the sacrifice of Calvary. The silence on the destruction of the Most Holy Sacrifice is the smoking gun. Leo XIV is not defending the integrity of the priesthood; he is managing the transition to a new, naturalistic religion. He warns against a tool (AI) while endorsing and participating in the most devastating tool of all: the new ecumenical, protestantized liturgy that has shattered the faith of generations. His call for a “life of prayer” is immediately undermined by his own example of a “dialogue” that is devoid of any reference to the sacred, to the sacrificial, to the need for sacramental confession, or to the daily meditation on the immutability of God. It is a call to a vague, interior “experience” of the Lord, precisely the “natural religion” condemned in the Syllabus (#40: “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society” is the accusation made by secularists against the Church’s claim to exclusive truth; Leo XIV’s entire approach accepts this premise).
4. The “Pandemic” of Clerical Envy: A Deflection from the Pandemic of Apostasy
Leo XIV identifies “invidia clericalis” (clerical envy) as a “pandemic” of the clergy. This is a grotesque misdiagnosis that serves to deflect from the true pandemic: the universal apostasy of the post-conciliar hierarchy and clergy. The Fathers of the Church and the great moral theologians never listed “envy” as a unique clerical vice requiring papal diagnosis. The true and defining vice of the modern clergy is heresy and apostasy. As St. Robert Bellarmine, cited in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, explains: a manifest heretic “by that very fact ceases to be Pope and head, just as he ceases to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church.” The entire Roman clergy, with very few exceptions, accepts the doctrines of Vatican II: religious liberty (condemned in Syllabus #15-18), ecumenism (a project for religious relativism, as noted in the Fatima file’s “ECUMENISM PROJECT”), and the evolution of dogma (condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu, propositions #54-65). Their “envy” is a symptom of their worldliness, their ambition for power and prestige within the conciliar sect’s structures. Leo XIV’s focus on interpersonal feelings is a naturalistic, psychological analysis that completely bypasses the supernatural reality: these men are not merely flawed friends; they are, for the most part, formal heretics who have severed themselves from the Body of Christ. To speak of “building bridges of friendship” while they propagate the errors of Modernism, which St. Pius X called “the synthesis of all heresies,” is to whitewash a spiritual plague with sentimentalism.
5. The Euthanasia “Witness”: A Failure of Dogmatic Clarity
On euthanasia, Leo XIV’s response is characteristically weak and humanistic. He asks priests to “be the first to bear witness to the fact that life has enormous value,” and to visit the sick. He does not, however, declare euthanasia to be the intrinsic evil of murder, a direct violation of the Fifth Commandment. He does not cite the authoritative, pre-conciliar teaching of the Church on the absolute inviolability of innocent human life, nor does he call for the civil authorities to enact laws with the death penalty for this crime (a penalty taught by the ordinary magisterium and found in the 1917 Code of Canon Law). His approach is one of “witness” and “gratitude,” not of doctrinal condemnation and canonical penalty. This is the language of the “Church of the New Advent,” which has replaced the Church’s juridical and doctrinal authority with a mere “witness” that is indistinguishable from the activism of a secular humanitarian organization. The Syllabus of Errors, #64, condemns the idea that “the violation of any solemn oath, as well as any wicked and flagitious action repugnant to the eternal law, is not only not blamable but is altogether lawful and worthy of the highest praise when done through love of country.” The modern state legalizing euthanasia claims to do so out of “compassion” (a form of love of country/community). Leo XIV offers no counter-dogma, no ex cathedra condemnation, no assertion of the Church’s right to bind the consciences of rulers. He offers only a soft “witness,” which the world can easily ignore. This is the fruit of the error condemned in Lamentabili, proposition #63: “The Church is incapable of effectively defending evangelical ethics, because it steadfastly adheres to its views, which cannot be reconciled with modern progress.” Leo XIV demonstrates this incapacity perfectly. He has already reconciled himself to “modern progress” by abandoning the Church’s duty to teach and govern nations.
6. The “Old Age” and “Service” Charade: Obscuring the Reality of the Invalid Priesthood
The antipope’s touching remarks about elderly priests and their prayerful “service” are a cruel mockery. He states, “Even if they are sick in bed… their prayer can also be a great service, a great gift.” This is true in the abstract for any Catholic. But in the concrete reality of the conciliar sect, what priesthood are we discussing? The vast majority of these “priests” received sacramental ordination according to the new rites, which, due to defects in form and intention, are highly doubtful if not outright invalid. The “priesthood” of the post-conciliar church is a theatrical performance. To speak of the “service” of a man who may not be a valid priest, who celebrates a doubtful “Mass,” and who has spent his life propagating heresy, is to participate in a grand illusion. Furthermore, his call for priests to bring Communion and Anointing to the sick, while criticizing the over-reliance on lay ministers, is hypocritical. The entire conciliar reform was designed to create a “ministerial” priesthood of the people of God, blurring the lines between cleric and lay. The very existence of “lay ministers of Holy Communion” is a direct result of the post-conciliar desacralization. His complaint is a lament for a priesthood he is actively helping to dismantle. The true Catholic priesthood, as defined by the Council of Trent and the pre-conciliar popes, is a supernatural, indelible character. It exists to offer the Holy Sacrifice and administer the sacraments. The “priesthood” Leo XIV presides over is a sociological category, a job description for community animators. His praise for elderly “priests” is the praise of retired functionaries for a lifetime of service to a bankrupt system.
Conclusion: The Antichurch’s Pastoral Program of Apostasy
The dialogue orchestrated by Leo XIV is not a pastoral meeting; it is a symptom of the final apostasy. Every theme—from the focus on “friendship” over grace, “inculturation” over conversion, “witness” over dogma, and “service” over sacrifice—aligns perfectly with the errors catalogued by Pope Pius IX and St. Pius X. It is the practical outworking of the “synthesis of all heresies” (Modernism) condemned in Pascendi Dominici gregis and Lamentabili sane exitu. The document from the Fatima file correctly identifies the diversion from the true danger: “The message focuses on external threats… omitting the main danger: modernist apostasy within the Church.” Leo XIV’s dialogue is a masterclass in this diversion. He talks about drugs, crime, loneliness, and internet deception while remaining utterly silent on the apostasy of the “Church” he leads, the invalidity of its sacraments, and the damnation of its doctrines. He offers a program for building a better secular world within the ruins of the City of God. The true Catholic, adhering to the faith of all time, must reject this man and his entire conciliar sect. The only “dialogue” that matters is the one between the individual soul and God, mediated by the true sacraments administered by validly ordained priests in communion with the immutable faith. Everything emanating from the Vatican since the death of Pope Pius XII is part of the “abomination of desolation.” To participate in it, to listen to it, to find “inspiration” in it, is to collaborate with the revolution of Antichrist. The only path is refuga—flight—to the catacombs of the true, unchanged Catholic faith.
Source:
Pope in dialogue with Rome's priests: Be friends, beware of envy and the internet (vaticannews.va)
Date: 20.02.2026