The EWTN News article reports on the March 28, 2026, visit of “Pope” Leo XIV to Monaco. The antipope praised the principality’s “gift of smallness” and its status as one of the few nations retaining Catholicism as a state religion, urging it to serve “the cause of law and justice” and noting that “in the Bible… it is the small who make history.” The article contextualizes this within Monaco’s recent refusal by Prince Albert II to broaden abortion laws. The visit was carefully staged to avoid the antipope setting foot on French soil, thus sidestepping diplomatic protocol with the French republic. The underlying thesis of the article is that this event represents a harmonious union of a tiny Catholic state with a benign, spiritually attuned pontiff—a narrative that, upon examination, reveals a profound theological and spiritual bankruptcy, masking the reality of the post-conciliar apostasy and the vacant See.
The “Gift of Smallness”: A Naturalistic inversion of Catholic Social Doctrine
The antipope’s central theme, that Monaco’s “gift of smallness” enables it to “shape history” and serve justice, is a stark departure from Catholic teaching on the social reign of Christ. Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Quas Primas (1925), instituted precisely to combat the secularist error that the state may be indifferent to religion, teaches the opposite: it is not the smallness of a nation, but the universal sovereignty of Christ the King that orders society. Pius XI declares that Christ’s kingdom “encompasses all men” and that “the state is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men,” all of whom must be subject to Christ’s law. The antipope’s focus on national characteristics (“smallness”) as a historical agent is a subtle shift from the supernatural principle of Christ’s dominion to a naturalistic, almost sociological, principle of national identity. This echoes the condemned errors of the Syllabus of Errors (#39, #40), which Pius IX anathematized: “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits,” and “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society.” To imply that a state’s value lies in its size or particular heritage, rather than in its public recognition of Christ’s sovereign law, is to peddle a relativistic, human-centered ideology diametrically opposed to the unum necessarium—the absolute primacy of God’s rights over all societies.
The “Living Spiritual Heritage”: A Vacuous Phrase Masking Apostasy
The phrase “living spiritual heritage” is a quintessential product of the conciliar revolution’s hermeneutics of discontinuity. It is a vague, sentimental term devoid of concrete doctrinal content. Pre-1958 Catholic doctrine defined the Church’s heritage in objective, supernatural terms: the depositum fidei, theSacraments, the hierarchical constitution, the exclusive right to teach and sanctify. Pope Pius X, in his encyclical Pascendi Dominici gregis (1907) and the accompanying decree Lamentabili sane exitu, condemned the modernist error that seeks to transform objective religious truth into a subjective, evolving “spiritual experience.” Proposition #58 of Lamentabili states: “Truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him.” The antipope’s language of a “living heritage” aligns perfectly with this condemned proposition, suggesting a dynamic, human-driven evolution of faith rather than the immutable Tradition guarded by the Church. The article notes Monaco’s Catholicism as its “state religion,” yet the antipope utters not a syllable about the obligation of the state to repress false religions, to forbid public worship of error, or to enact laws in conformity with the Ten Commandments—duties explicitly taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas and by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#15, #16, #77). The silence is deafening and damning. It reveals a “spiritual heritage” stripped of its social and juridical consequences, reduced to a private sentiment compatible with the modern secular order.
The Omission of Christ’s Social Kingship: The Core of the Apostasy
The most grievous omission in the entire event and its coverage is the complete absence of the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. This is not an accidental oversight but the systematic exclusion of a fundamental article of Catholic faith. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, explains that Christ’s kingdom is “not bounded by any limits” and that “all power in heaven and on earth is given to Him.” Therefore, “it is necessary that Christ reign in the mind of man… in the will… in the heart… in the body.” The encyclical directly links the rejection of this reign to the ills of society: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The antipope’s speech, and the article’s reporting, contain not one reference to Christ’s kingship over nations, to the duty of civil authority to recognize the Catholic Church as the sole true religion, or to the obligation to legislate in conformity with divine law. Instead, we are treated to platitudes about “law and justice” and “the humble.” This is a deliberate evacuation of the supernatural. It is the very “secularism” and “laicism” Pius XI identified as the “plague” poisoning society. The article’s author, Andrea Gagliarducci, presents this as a beautiful moment of Church-state harmony, but it is in fact the spectacle of a man claiming to be the Vicar of Christ while utterly refusing to proclaim Christ’s royalty before the nations—a refusal that constitutes public apostasy.
The Illusion of a “Catholic State” in the Conciliar Sect
Monaco is hailed as “the last nation in Europe where Catholicism remains the official state religion.” This is a profound deception. A state religion is meaningless if the religion itself is not held in its integrity. The “Catholic faith” professed by the conciliar structures, since the Second Vatican Council, has been systematically adulterated. The Dignitatis Humanae (1965) proclaimed a “right” to religious freedom, a doctrine condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (#15, #16, #77) and by Pius XI in Quas Primas as “impious and absurd.” The “ecumenism” of Unitatis Redintegratio (1964) undermines the exclusive salvific role of the Catholic Church, contradicting the dogma extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. The “liturgy” of Paul VI’s Novus Ordo Missae is a radical departure from the sacrificial theology of the Holy Mass defined by Trent, a point condemned by Pius X in Lamentabili (#39-46). Therefore, Monaco’s “state religion” is a phantom. It is the religion of the “Church of the New Advent,” which teaches errors condemned by pre-1958 pontiffs. Prince Albert’s refusal to broaden abortion laws, while a natural good, is not a supernatural act of justice if it is not grounded in the full, unadulterated faith and motivated by the desire to see the Social Kingship of Christ publicly recognized. It is merely a political stance, devoid of theological merit. The article presents this as a victory for “Catholicism,” but it is merely a retention of a natural law principle within a framework that has formally rejected the supernatural order in society.
The “Humble Who Shape History”: A Heretical Reversal of Divine Providence
The antipope’s quote, “In the Bible, as you know, it is the small who make history!” is a gross misinterpretation of Scripture used to promote a naturalistic, Pelagian worldview. Catholic theology, as expounded by St. Augustine and the Scholastics, teaches that all historical movement is under the sovereign direction of Divine Providence. The “small” in Scripture (e.g., David, the Apostles) are instruments of God’s power, not agents of their own making. The antipope’s statement, stripped of its context, suggests that human humility and small-scale action are the primary drivers of history—a subtle form of humanism. This is the error of “the cult of man” condemned by Pius XII in Humani Generis (1950) and anticipated in the Syllabus (#58: “All the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches… and the gratification of pleasure”). True Catholic action is not about “making history” through human effort, but about cooperating with grace to establish the reign of Christ. The antipope’s language is the language of the world, not of the Church. It is the language of the “progressives” who believe in human perfectibility, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili (#57-65). The “humble” who shape history, in Catholic doctrine, are the saints who, through humility, become docile instruments of God’s will. The antipope inverts this: he makes human humility the engine, not the disposition.
The Diplomatic Charade: Avoiding French Soil as Symbol of the Conciliar Church’s Captivity
The article’s detail about the helicopter flight “to ensure the pope would not have to set foot on French soil, thereby absolving him of the institutional obligation to pay a visit to the president of the French Republic” is a telling symptom of the post-conciliar church’s abject subjection to secular powers. In the pre-1958 Church, the Pope, as a sovereign temporal ruler, would have demanded the rights due to his office. The head of the Catholic Church, even in a diplomatic visit, would not subordinate his movements to the territorial sensitivities of a secular republic. This detail exposes the “Church of the New Advent” as a purely spiritual entity with no temporal sovereignty, willingly accepting the role of a non-governmental organization (NGO) within the secular world order. It is the fulfillment of the Syllabus’s lament (#41, #42): “The civil government… has a right to an indirect negative power over religious affairs… In the case of conflicting laws enacted by the two powers, the civil law prevails.” The antipope’s actions demonstrate that he acknowledges the superior temporal power of the French state—a direct contradiction of the liberty and immunity of the Church taught by Pius IX and Leo XIII. The “humble” who shape history, it seems, must also be humble before the demands of secular diplomats.
Conclusion: The Apostasy of the “Useful Idiot”
The article portrays a serene, spiritually significant encounter between a pontiff and a Catholic micro-state. The analysis reveals it to be a meticulously staged performance of a religion stripped of its supernatural essence. The antipope Leo XIV, a manifest heretic who cannot hold the papacy (cf. St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice; Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio), preaches a vague, naturalistic “spirituality” that omits the non-negotiable dogma of Christ’s Social Kingship. Monaco’s “Catholic” identity is a hollow shell, as the faith it professes in its official capacity is the adulterated, modernist religion of the conciliar sect. The event is not a triumph of faith but a symptom of the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place: a man who claims to be the Vicar of Christ refusing to proclaim Christ’s royalty, applauding a nation for its “smallness” while both ignore the absolute and exclusive rights of God over all societies. The faithful are called not to marvel at such spectacles but to heed the unchangeable teaching of Pius XI: “If men were ever to recognize Christ’s royal authority over themselves, both privately and publicly, then unheard-of blessings would flow upon the whole society.” Until this recognition is demanded by a true hierarchy—which does not exist in the current vacant See—all such encounters are empty gestures, serving only to perpetuate the Great Apostasy foretold by St. Pius X and the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV tells Monaco: 'It is the humble who shape history' (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 28.03.2026