The National Catholic Register reports that the current usurper of Peter’s throne, Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), is undertaking an African apostolate, with Equatorial Guinea being the only nation on his itinerary where he can communicate in Spanish due to nearly two centuries of Spanish colonial rule. The article highlights that Equatorial Guinea is “overwhelmingly Catholic,” with Spanish as an official language, Spanish wine, chorizo, and nougat imports, and a “strong cultural presence” of Spain persisting to this day. Former U.S. ambassador Alberto Fernández describes it as “a Spanish-speaking country, very Catholic, very African, but with certain touches of old Spain,” noting its oil wealth alongside “vast social disparities” and poverty. The piece frames this visit through the lens of cultural affinity and linguistic convenience, presenting the conciliar sect’s outreach as a natural extension of historical ties between Spain and its former colony. This superficial reporting, however, conceals the profound theological and spiritual bankruptcy of a modernist antipope presuming to exercise a primacy he does not possess, visiting a nation whose Catholic identity is itself a product of colonial evangelization now thoroughly corrupted by the very same ecclesiastical revolution that produced Leo XIV.
The Presumption of a Usurper Exercising Papal Authority
Let us begin with what the article, in its dutiful service to the conciliar sect, dares not say: Leo XIV is not the Pope of Rome. He is a usurper, an antipope occupying the Vatican since his installation following the resignation of Benedict XVI (himself a modernist who abdicated a legitimate office he had corrupted) and the subsequent conclave of cardinals who, by their manifest heresy and apostasy, lost all jurisdiction and authority to elect a true successor of Peter. The entire edifice of the post-conciliar “Church” — its “popes,” its “cardinals,” its “bishops,” its “councils” — rests upon the foundational heresy of Vatican II, which Pius XI would have recognized as the very “secularism” and “laicism” he condemned in Quas Primas (1925), and which St. Pius X identified as “the synthesis of all heresies” — Modernism.
When the article refers to “Pope Leo XIV’s current African itinerary,” it employs the language of legitimacy for an office that has been vacated by the apostasy of its occupants. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice (Book II, Chapter 30): “A Pope who is 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.” This is not a disciplinary opinion but a theological conclusion drawn from the very nature of the Church: a manifest heretic cannot be the head of that of which he is not a member. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, Canon 188.4, confirms this: every office becomes vacant “by the mere fact and without any declaration” by reason of “public defection from the Catholic faith.” Every single conciliar “pope” from John XXIII onward has publicly defected from the Catholic faith through the heresies of Vatican II — religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae), ecumenism (Unitatis Redintegratio), the novel teaching on the Church’s relationship to non-Christian religions (Nostra Aetate), and the wholesale liturgical revolution that destroyed the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Leo XIV, as a product and defender of this apostatic system, possesses no more authority to undertake an “African apostolate” than any other layman. His “visit” is not a papal act but a modernist spectacle, a public relations exercise for the paramasonic structure occupying the Vatican.
The Article’s Deafening Silence on the True Nature of the Conciliar Sect
The National Catholic Register, a publication that has long served as a mouthpiece for the more “conservative” wing of the conciliar sect, presents this visit with the reverence and deference due to a true pontiff. There is not a single word of warning to the faithful that this man is a manifest heretic, that his “Masses” are sacrilegious, that his “teaching” is a continuation of the modernist revolution, and that following him leads not to salvation but to spiritual ruin. This silence is itself a grave sin against the First Commandment and against charity toward the souls being deceived.
Consider what the article should say if it were written from the perspective of integral Catholic faith: that the “pope” visiting Equatorial Guinea is a man who has never professed the integral Catholic faith, who participates in a liturgical rite that is at best doubtfully valid and at worst a Protestant memorial service stripped of all propitiatory character, who promotes the ecumenism condemned by Pius XI in Mortalium Animos and by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (proposition 18: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church”). The article’s failure to address these realities is not mere oversight — it is complicity in the systematic deception of the faithful.
Colonial Evangelization and the Corruption of Catholic Mission
The article’s treatment of Equatorial Guinea’s Catholic identity is revealing in its superficiality. It notes that the country is “overwhelmingly Catholic” with Spanish as an official language, Spanish imports, and “a strong cultural presence” of Spain. Former ambassador Fernández describes it as “very Catholic, very African, but with certain touches of old Spain.” This is presented as an unalloyed positive — a charming cultural legacy facilitating the usurper’s visit.
But what does this “Catholic” identity actually mean in the context of the conciliar revolution? The evangelization of Equatorial Guinea, like that of all Spanish colonial territories, was carried out under the patronage of the Spanish Crown and the authority of the true Church. The missionaries who brought the Faith to these lands operated under the principles articulated by Pius XI in Quas Primas: that Christ the King reigns over all nations, that the Church has full authority to teach, govern, and sanctify, and that the state has a duty to publicly honor Christ and obey His laws. The Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata, which administered Equatorial Guinea along with vast South American territories, was an instrument of Catholic evangelization — imperfect, subject to the sins and limitations of its human agents, but operating within the framework of the Church’s divine mission.
What has become of that mission? The same ecclesiastical authority that once sent missionaries to Equatorial Guinea has been captured by modernists who deny the very principles upon which that evangelization was built. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae — condemned in advance by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors (proposition 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship”) — has transformed the Church’s mission from the proclamation of Christ the King to a dialogue of equals with all religions. The “Catholic” identity of Equatorial Guinea today is not the Catholic identity of the missionaries who evangelized it; it is the Catholic identity of the conciliar sect — a hollowed-out shell, a cultural Catholicism devoid of doctrinal content, perfectly suited to the modernist project of reducing the Church to a humanitarian NGO.
The article’s celebration of Spanish wine, chorizo, and nougat as evidence of Catholic continuity is a telling symptom of this reduction. When the Faith becomes a matter of cultural consumption rather than supernatural transformation, when “Catholic” identity is measured by imported delicacies rather than by adherence to the unchanging deposit of faith, then the evangelization of Equatorial Guinea has been not fulfilled but betrayed.
The Omission of Social Doctrine: Oil Wealth, Poverty, and the Church’s True Mission
The article briefly notes that Equatorial Guinea is “rich in natural resources, primarily oil and natural gas,” with “major highways, modern airports, and investment in infrastructure,” yet suffers from “the problem of poverty — the disparity between the rich and the poor.” Fernández compares it to Venezuela. This is presented as a mere sociological observation, a neutral fact about the country’s economic condition.
From the perspective of integral Catholic faith, this is a catastrophic omission. The Church’s social doctrine, articulated by Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, and in Quas Primas, addresses precisely this question: the just ordering of society under the reign of Christ the King. Pius XI explicitly states in Quas Primas that the state has a duty to order all relations “on the basis of God’s commandments and Christian principles, both in the issuing of laws and in the administration of justice, as well as in the education and formation of youth in sound doctrine and purity of morals.” The vast social disparities in Equatorial Guinea are not merely an economic problem — they are a moral and spiritual crisis that demands the application of Catholic social teaching.
But what can Leo XIV say about this? He is a modernist who participates in a “Church” that has abandoned the social kingship of Christ in favor of the very liberalism and religious indifferentism condemned by Pius IX. The conciliar sect’s “social teaching” is a pale imitation of the true doctrine, diluted by dialogue with Marxism, liberalism, and the secular humanist project. When Leo XIV visits Equatorial Guinea, he will not proclaim the social reign of Christ the King; he will offer the same bland humanitarian platitudes that every modernist “pope” has offered since John XXIII — platitudes that leave the structures of injustice intact while providing a veneer of spiritual respectability to the global capitalist order.
The Linguistic Convenience as Theological Symptom
The article’s emphasis on Spanish as the linguistic bridge between Leo XIV and Equatorial Guinea is presented as a charming detail — the only country on the itinerary where the “pope” can speak Spanish. But this linguistic convenience is itself a symptom of the deeper problem: the conciliar sect’s approach to mission is fundamentally naturalistic, concerned with cultural affinity and communicative efficiency rather than with the supernatural proclamation of the Gospel.
The true Church’s mission, as articulated by Pius XI in Quas Primas, is not facilitated by linguistic convenience but by the power of the Holy Ghost working through the sacraments, the preaching of the true Faith, and the intercession of the saints. The Apostles at Pentecost spoke in tongues not because of colonial linguistic legacies but because of divine power. The reduction of the Church’s mission to a matter of shared language and cultural imports is a profound degradation of the evangelical commission — a reduction that is entirely consistent with the modernist transformation of the Church from a divine institution into a human organization.
The “Catholic” Nation as Conciliar Showcase
Equatorial Guinea, as presented in the article, serves as a perfect showcase for the conciliar sect’s vision of “Catholicism”: a nation with a Catholic cultural identity, Spanish linguistic heritage, and sufficient economic resources to host a modernist “pope” in comfort. It is a “Catholic” nation that does not challenge the conciliar revolution, that does not demand the restoration of the Most Holy Sacrifice, that does not question the legitimacy of the usurpers in Vatican. It is, in short, a model conciliar “Catholic” nation — Catholic in name and cultural heritage, modernist in its actual ecclesiastical allegiance.
The article’s celebration of this reality — its presentation of Equatorial Guinea’s Catholic identity as an unqualified positive, its failure to distinguish between the true Faith and the conciliar counterfeit — is a microcosm of the entire post-conciliar deception. The faithful are led to believe that “Catholic” identity is a matter of cultural heritage and linguistic affinity rather than of doctrinal fidelity and sacramental communion with the true Church. This is the very essence of the modernist heresy as defined by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: the reduction of the Faith to a religious experience, a cultural phenomenon, a human development — rather than the unchanging deposit of divine revelation entrusted to the Church for all time.
Conclusion: The Spiritual Ruin Behind the Spectacle
The National Catholic Register’s report on Leo XIV’s visit to Equatorial Guinea is a textbook example of conciliar journalism: superficially informative, theologically vacuous, and spiritually lethal. It presents a modernist usurper’s diplomatic tour as a papal apostolate, a colonial cultural legacy as Catholic continuity, and a nation’s economic misery as a neutral sociological fact. Behind the smiling photographs and the cheerful descriptions of Spanish chorizo lies the abomination of desolation — a counterfeit “Church” that has abandoned the true Faith, a counterfeit “pope” who possesses no authority, and a counterfeit “Catholicism” that is cultural consumption rather than supernatural transformation.
The faithful must reject this spectacle entirely. They must recognize Leo XIV for what he is — a manifest heretic, an antipope, a product of the conciliar apostasy. They must recognize the “Catholicism” of Equatorial Guinea for what it has become — a cultural shell emptied of doctrinal content by the modernist revolution. And they must return to the unchanging Faith of the Church before 1958, to the true Mass, to the true sacraments, to the true social teaching of Christ the King. As Pius XI declared in Quas Primas: “His reign encompasses all human nature, it is clear that there is no power in us that is exempt from this reign.” No modernist spectacle, no conciar diplomatic tour, no amount of Spanish chorizo can change this fundamental truth. Christ is King — and His Kingdom is not of this world, nor of the conciar sect that falsely claims to represent it.
Source:
Pope Leo XIV Will Be Able to Speak Spanish in This African Nation (ncregister.com)
Date: 21.04.2026