The Modernist Heresy of “Inculturation”
[Vatican News] reports that antipope Leo XIV, in a message dated 5 February 2026 to a Theological-Pastoral Congress in Mexico City, presented Our Lady of Guadalupe as “a model of authentic inculturation and a lasting criterion for the Church’s evangelising mission.” The core of his teaching is that inculturation “assumes and purifies [cultures] so that they may become places of encounter with Christ,” without absolutising or dismissing cultures. This doctrine is not a development of Catholic tradition but a direct repudiation of it, embodying the indifferentism condemned by Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors.
“The event of Tepeyac… offers a paradigm for proclaiming the Gospel without coercion while preserving the integrity and newness of Christian revelation.”
The phrase “without coercion” is a deliberate negation of the Church’s right and duty to convert nations. Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), declared that Christ’s reign must be publicly recognized by states: “Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ.” Leo XIV’s paradigm omits this entirely, replacing the mandatum to evangelize with a vague “encounter.” This is the heresy of indifferentism, formally condemned:
Error 16 of the Syllabus: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” — Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors (1864)
Leo XIV’s call to recognise “seeds of the Word” in cultures is a direct echo of Modernism, which St. Pius X condemned in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907). Proposition 20 states: “Revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God.” The “seeds of the Word” concept reduces divine revelation to an immanent human experience, denying the supernatural, objective, and exclusive character of Catholic truth. The Lamentabili further condemns the notion that doctrine evolves with cultures (Props. 58-60) and that the Church must adapt to “modern progress” (Prop. 64). Leo XIV’s entire framework is a restatement of these condemned propositions.
Guadalupe: From Approved Apparition to Apostasy Tool
The Guadalupe event, approved by Pope Benedict XIV in 1754, is here instrumentalized to promote a theology of encounter that nullifies the necessity of explicit Catholic conversion. The article notes the congress seeks to prepare for the 2031 Jubilee, marking 500 years since the apparitions. This focus on a private revelation—while the article makes no mention of the sede vacante or the apostasy of the post-conciliar hierarchy—reveals a fundamental shift from the public, dogmatic faith to a sentimental, experience-based religiosity. The Syllabus condemns the idea that “the Christian religion began to be equated with other false religions” (para. 40). By presenting Guadalupe as a model for “dialogue” and “inculturation” without the imperative of Catholic unity, Leo XIV’s message places the apparition in service of the very indifferentism the Syllabus anathematized.
The omission is decisive: there is no assertion that Guadalupe calls the indigenous peoples of Mexico to abandon their idolatrous practices and submit to the sole reign of Christ the King as defined by Pius XI. Instead, the “encounter” is framed as a mutual enrichment, a classic Modernist theme. This aligns with the “ecumenism project” described in the False Fatima file, where ambiguous formulations open the way to religious relativism. The Guadalupe message, as repurposed by Leo XIV, serves the same function: to legitimize a pluralistic, religiously indifferent society under the guise of inculturation.
The Omission of Catholic Exclusivity and the Social Kingship of Christ
The most damning evidence of apostasy is what the article silently excludes. Leo XIV speaks of “making Jesus Christ present” and “fostering a living relationship,” but never affirms the Catholic Church as the only ark of salvation. He does not quote the Council of Trent (Session VI, Canon 4): “If anyone says that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary for salvation… let him be anathema.” Nor does he cite Quas Primas on the duty of states to publicly honor Christ. The article’s tone is bureaucratic, therapeutic, and naturalistic—a stark contrast to the uncompromising supernaturalism of pre-1958 magisterial documents.
Pius XI in Quas Primas defined the kingdom of Christ as encompassing all men and requiring public obedience from states:
“His reign, namely, 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… Let rulers of states therefore not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ.”
Leo XIV’s message is a complete rejection of this doctrine. By reducing evangelization to “inculturation” and “encounter,” he implicitly denies the social kingship of Christ. This is the “secularism of our times” that Pius XI sought to combat with the feast of Christ the King. The article’s silence on the final judgment, the danger of hell, and the necessity of Catholic faith for salvation is the gravest accusation. It preaches a Gospel of immanent human fulfillment, not the supernatural salvation offered by the one true Church.
Sedevacantist Reality: An Antipope Teaches Heresy
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, the foundational error is the assumption that Leo XIV possesses any teaching authority. The file on Defense of Sedevacantism demonstrates, using St. Robert Bellarmine and Canon 188.4, that a manifest heretic loses the papacy ipso facto. Leo XIV, by promoting indifferentism—a doctrine condemned by Pius IX and Pius X—is a manifest heretic. His “pontificate” is a usurpation. The congress he addresses, promoted by the “Mexican Episcopal Conference” and the “Pontifical Commission for Latin America,” is a gathering of the conciliar sect, not the Catholic Church.
Bellarmine states unequivocally: “a manifest heretic cannot be Pope… a non-Christian in no way can be Pope… he cannot be the head of something of which he is not a member.” The “seeds of the Word” theology, the emphasis on cultural preservation over conversion, and the omission of the exclusive claims of Catholicism are all manifestations of the Modernist synthesis condemned by St. Pius X. Therefore, Leo XIV’s message is not a legitimate development but a public act of apostasy. The true Catholic, adhering to the faith as it was before the 1958 revolution, must reject this teaching with absolute abhorrence. The Guadalupe event, if it occurred, is being used as a Trojan horse for the very indifferentism that the Syllabus and Lamentabili destroyed.
The article’s language—”demanding and purifying process,” “transmission of faith can no longer be presumed,” “mature and conscious discipleship”—is the lexicon of the post-conciliar revolution. It replaces the clear, supernatural mandates of the pre-1958 Church with a vague, humanistic project. This is not evangelization; it is the domestication of the Gospel to the spirit of the age. As the Syllabus declared (Error 40): “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society.” Leo XIV’s message proves the opposite: he seeks to make the Church “relevant” by making it worldly, thus confirming the Syllabus’s diagnosis of the modern error.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV: Guadalupe and the inculturation of the Gospel (vaticannews.va)
Date: 24.02.2026