EWTN News portal reports on the 11-day African journey of the usurper Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), who visited Algeria, Cameroon, Angola, and Equatorial Guinea between April 13–23, 2026. The article presents seven “powerful moments” from this trip, including a visit to the Great Mosque of Algiers, encounters with orphans and prisoners, a rosary gathering at the Mama Muxima Shrine, and a final Mass at Malabo Stadium. The tone is uniformly celebratory, portraying the antipope’s activities as gestures of interreligious dialogue, compassion for the marginalized, and evangelization. Yet beneath this veneer of pastoral solicitude lies a systematic betrayal of every principle that defines the Catholic Church’s mission — a mission that, since the conciliar revolution of the 1960s, has been hollowed out and replaced with naturalistic humanism, false ecumenism, and the worship of man rather than God.
The Mosque Visit: A Public Renunciation of Christ’s Unique Kingship
The most theologically damning moment of Leo XIV’s African sojourn — and the one the article presents as a badge of honor — is his visit to the Great Mosque of Algiers, Djamaa el Djazaïr. The usurper himself attempted to preempt criticism, stating on the papal plane: “I think the visit to the mosque was significant [and showed] that although we have different beliefs, we have different ways of worshipping, we have different ways of living, we can [still] live together in peace.”
This statement is not merely imprudent. It is a formal repudiation of the Church’s perennial teaching. Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), proclaimed with unmistakable clarity that Christ the King reigns over all nations, all peoples, and all aspects of human life — and that there is no neutrality before this kingship. The encyclical states: “His reign, namely, extends not only to Catholic nations or to those who, by receiving baptism according to law, belong to the Church, even though their erroneous opinions have led them astray or discord has separated them from love, 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 rulers and peoples is not to proclaim that “different beliefs” can coexist in a relativistic peace, but to submit to the kingship of Christ and to recognize that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12).
The Syllabus of Errors of Pius IX (1864) condemned the proposition that “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” (Proposition 77), and further condemned the claim that “the civil liberty of every form of worship, and the full power, given to all, of overtly and publicly manifesting any opinions whatsoever and thoughts, conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism” (Proposition 79). Leo XIV’s mosque visit is not an act of charity — it is a public liturgical act of religious indifferentism, placing the worship of the God of Israel and the Christian God on the same plane as the religion of Mohammed, which explicitly denies the divinity of Christ, the Trinity, and the Redemption.
The tradition the article invokes — John Paul II’s 2001 visit to the Damascus mosque — is not a tradition of the Catholic Church. It is a tradition of apostasy, inaugurated by the conciliar sect’s document Nostra Aetate (1965), which marked the formal abandonment of the Church’s missionary mandate toward Muslims and replaced it with “dialogue” — a euphemism for the abdication of truth. St. Pius X, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), had already identified the modernist tendency to reduce religion to a common sentiment shared by all faiths, stripping it of its supernatural, dogmatic, and exclusive character. Leo XIV’s mosque visit is the living fruit of that condemned modernist synthesis.
The “Rosary Gathering” at Mama Muxima: Syncretism in Sacred Vestments
The article describes with evident satisfaction how Leo XIV participated in a rosary gathering at the Mama Muxima Shrine in Angola, speaking a few words in Kimbundu: “Mama Muxima, tueza kokué, Mama Muxima, tutambululé” — “Mother of the heart, we come to you; Mother of the heart, receive us.”
The name itself — “Mother of the Heart” — immediately raises theological red flags. The Church has one Mother: the Blessed Virgin Mary, who is venerated under many approved titles, but always within the framework of defined dogma. The invocation of a local “Mother of the Heart” in a Bantu language, at a shrine built by Portuguese colonizers in the 17th century, bears all the hallmarks of religious syncretism — the blending of Catholic forms with indigenous animist or pagan substrata. The Church has always insisted on the purification of such practices, not their celebration.
Moreover, the article’s description of the shrine as a place where “love of her grew until she became the beloved icon of the nation’s Marian devotion” reveals a dangerously subjective criterion for authentic Catholic devotion: popular sentiment. The Church does not measure the authenticity of Marian apparitions or devotions by the enthusiasm of the crowd, but by rigorous theological investigation, the conformity of the message with revealed doctrine, and the fruits of conversion to the Catholic faith — not merely emotional consolation.
The same pattern repeats with the mention of Our Lady of Bisila at the final Mass in Malabo. The article describes this image in terms that are more anthropological than theological: “Clothed in white and blue, carrying the child Jesus on her back in the traditional African way, the Virgin of Bisila shows a mother who walks with her people in every struggle and hope.” The emphasis is on cultural identity, on the Virgin as a symbol of communal solidarity — not on her role as Mediatrix of all graces, Co-Redemptrix, and the woman who crushes the head of Satan (Genesis 3:15). This is the reduction of the supernatural to the cultural, a hallmark of the modernist method condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), which rejected the proposition that “dogmas, sacraments, and hierarchy, both in concept and in reality, are merely modes of explanation and stages in the evolution of Christian consciousness” (Proposition 54).
Visits to the Marginalized: The Gospel Without the Cross</h2
The article highlights several moments of Leo XIV's encounter with the suffering: orphans at the Ngul Zamba Orphanage in Cameroon, patients at the Jean-Pierre Olié Psychiatric Hospital in Equatorial Guinea, and inmates at the Bata penitentiary. These are presented as the emotional centerpiece of the trip — moments that "captured the hearts of millions around the world."
Let us examine what was actually said. To the orphans, the usurper declared: “You are called to a future that is greater than your wounds. You are bearers of a promise.” To the prisoners: “No one is excluded from God’s love,” and he urged them to see that “even behind bars, there remains the possibility of change, reconciliation, and hope.” To the psychiatric patients: “Joy prevails. It is the joy of meeting in the name of the Lord and of caring for those who are in frail health.”
What is conspicuously absent from every single one of these addresses? Any mention of sin, repentance, confession, the state of grace, the necessity of baptism, the reality of hell, or the salvific power of the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The “Gospel message” that Leo XIV claims to share is a Gospel stripped of every supernatural element — a Gospel of human dignity, inclusion, and hope that is indistinguishable from the message of any secular humanitarian organization.
This is precisely the error condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus: the reduction of the Church’s mission to the natural order. The Church was not founded to make people feel better about their wounds. It was founded to save souls from eternal damnation through the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. The Council of Trent taught that the Mass is a true propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead — not a “meeting in the name of the Lord” accompanied by songs and dances.
The prisoner who thanked the usurper said: “Your presence reminds us of the importance of faith and redemption.” But what redemption does Leo XIV offer? Not the redemption of Calvary, applied through the sacraments of the true Church. He offers the redemption of human solidarity — a redemption that requires no conversion, no confession, no absolution, and no submission to the kingship of Christ. This is the cult of man that Pius XI identified as the ultimate fruit of secularism: “When God and Jesus Christ — as we lamented — were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed” (Ubi Arcano Dei Consilio).
The “Final Mass”: Liturgical Abomination in Malabo Stadium
The article describes the closing Mass at Malabo Stadium in terms that reveal the full extent of the liturgical revolution: “After riding through the crowd in the popemobile, Leo began Mass amid flags, songs, and colorful hats, with music and dance accompanying the liturgy.”
This is not the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass as the Church has celebrated it for two millennia. This is a spectacle — a theatrical performance designed to generate emotional fervor and media coverage. The Traditional Latin Mass, codified by St. Pius V after the Council of Trent, is oriented entirely toward the adoration of God, the propitiatory offering of Christ’s Body and Blood, and the sanctification of the faithful. It is celebrated ad orientem, in Latin, with silence, reverence, and the absolute centrality of the altar — not the celebrant.
What Leo XIV celebrated in Malabo Stadium is the Novus Ordo Missae of Paul VI (Montini) — a liturgy designed by the apostate Annibale Bugnini with the assistance of six Protestant observers, a liturgy that the Catholic theologian Guérard des Lauriers demonstrated to be ambiguous in its sacrificial theology and therefore incapable of expressing the Catholic faith in the Holy Mass. The “music and dance” accompanying the liturgy are not embellishments — they are substitutions for the sacred, replacing the transcendent with the immanent, the supernatural with the carnal.
The article’s description of the crowd — 30,000 faithful with “flags, songs, and colorful hats” — evokes not a congregation assembled for the worship of the Most High, but a festival. This is the logical endpoint of the conciliar liturgical revolution: the transformation of the Holy Sacrifice into a communal celebration of human togetherness, with the “priest” as master of ceremonies and the “faithful” as an audience.
The Omission That Condemns: No Mention of Conversion, No Mention of Christ the King
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of the entire article — and of the entire trip it describes — is what is not said. Nowhere in the seven “powerful moments” is there any mention of:
– The necessity of conversion to the Catholic faith as the sole means of salvation (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus);
– The sacrament of baptism as the gateway to the life of grace;
– The sacrament of confession as the ordinary means of forgiveness of mortal sins;
– The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the obligation to adore Him;
– The reality of hell and the urgency of avoiding it;
– The Social Kingship of Christ and the duty of nations to submit to His law;
– The condemnation of Islam as a false religion and the duty of the Church to preach the Gospel to Muslims;
– The propitiatory nature of the Holy Sacrifice and the obligation to offer it for the salvation of souls.
This silence is not accidental. It is systematic. It reflects the fundamental orientation of the conciliar sect since the Second Vatican Council: the replacement of the supernatural mission of the Church with a naturalistic program of human development, interreligious dialogue, and social justice. The Church, in this vision, is not the ark of salvation but a NGO with a liturgical veneer — an organization that visits prisons, comforts orphans, and enters mosques, but that has abandoned the preaching of the Gospel in its fullness.
Pius XI warned of this exact trajectory in Quas Primas: “It began with the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations; the Church’s authority to teach men, to issue laws, to govern nations, which authority she received from Christ the Lord to lead men to eternal happiness, was denied. And then, slowly, the Christian religion began to be equated with other false religions and shamelessly placed in the same category.” Leo XIV’s African trip is the living embodiment of this prophecy — a journey in which the usurper pontiff equated Christianity with Islam, reduced the Mass to a cultural celebration, and offered the world a “Gospel” that contains no Cross, no Blood, and no salvation.
Conclusion: The Usurper’s Trip as a Mirror of the Conciliar Apostasy
The seven “powerful moments” of Leo XIV’s African voyage are not powerful. They are symptoms — symptoms of an institution that has lost its reason for existence. The Catholic Church exists for one purpose: to glorify God and to save souls through the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the offering of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Everything else — every visit to a mosque, every embrace of an orphan, every speech to prisoners — is vanity unless it is ordered toward this supernatural end.
What Leo XIV offered Africa was not the Gospel. It was the religion of humanitarianism — the same religion that the modernist condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili described as “a certain dogmaless Christianity, that is, into a broad and liberal Protestantism” (Proposition 65). The usurper did not go to Africa to convert. He went to validate — to validate the conciliar revolution, to validate interreligious dialogue, to validate the reduction of the Church to a charitable organization, and to validate the replacement of the supernatural with the natural.
The true Church — the Church of all ages, the Church that produced St. Augustine of Hippo, the Church that Leo IV visited in Annaba — does not enter mosques. It preaches Christ crucified. It does not offer “hope” without repentance. It demands conversion. It does not celebrate the Mass as a festival. It offers the Holy Sacrifice in trembling adoration. And it does not seek the approval of the world. It seeks the glory of God alone.
Ad maiorem Dei gloriam — but not the God of Leo XIV. The God of the martyrs, the confessors, and the saints. The God who is “a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29), not a “Mother of the Heart” carried on a woman’s back. The God who demands “the obedience of faith” (Romans 1:5), not the “joy of meeting in the name of the Lord.”
Source:
7 powerful moments from Pope Leo XIV’s trip to Africa (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 25.04.2026