The National Catholic Register (May 5, 2026) reports that the usurper Leo XIV faces challenges from two sides within the conciliar sect: on one hand, German bishops like Georg Bätzing who persist in blessing same-sex unions against Catholic doctrine, and on the other, the Priestly Society of St. Pius X (SSPX) preparing episcopal ordinations without “papal” mandate. The article presents these as opposing forces between which Leo must navigate, framing the situation as a “challenge to unity” that requires careful management. This narrative exposes the fundamental bankruptcy of post-conciliar ecclesiology, where the public reign of Christ the King is replaced by bureaucratic crisis management, and where both sides represent different facets of the same modernist revolution that has destroyed the Church.
The Illusion of Unity Without Truth
The article’s central premise—that Leo XIV’s “great goal” is “to restore unity in the Church”—reveals the conciliar obsession with false unity at the expense of doctrinal integrity. True Catholic unity, as taught by Pius XI in Quas Primas, is founded upon the recognition of Christ’s royal authority over all nations and individuals, not upon diplomatic compromise between heresy and schism. The article describes Archbishop Bätzing’s defiance regarding same-sex blessings as merely creating “disunity,” when in reality it constitutes public heresy and apostasy from divine law. Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law clearly states that every office becomes vacant by the mere fact of public defection from the Catholic faith, without requiring any declaration. The German bishops have publicly defected from the faith by blessing what God condemns (Romans 1:27), thereby automatically forfeiting any claim to ecclesiastical authority according to the perennial teaching of the Church as articulated by St. Robert Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice.
The article’s framing of this situation as a “challenge” to Leo XIV’s authority exposes the fundamental error of post-conciliar ecclesiology: it treats the public reign of Christ the King as subordinate to human organizational concerns. Pius XI explicitly taught in Quas Primas 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” under Christ’s authority. The German bishops’ rebellion is not merely a disciplinary problem but a manifestation of the systematic apostasy that Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, particularly proposition 80: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” This is precisely the spirit that animates both the German progressives and the conciliar structures that tolerate them.
The SSPX: Schism Within the Abomination
The article’s treatment of the SSPX reveals the profound confusion of post-conciliar discourse regarding authority and tradition. While correctly noting that episcopal ordinations without pontifical mandate incur excommunication latae sententiae, the article fails to address the fundamental issue: the entire conciliar structure lacks legitimate authority to bind or loose. The SSPX’s reasoning—that canon law does not allow imposition of penalties for acts committed in response to perceived grave danger to the Church—ironically applies far more accurately to the conciliar “popes” themselves, who have imposed the modernist abomination upon the Church.
However, the SSPX position remains deeply problematic from the perspective of integral Catholic faith. As the file “False Fatima Apparitions” demonstrates, Archbishop Lefebvre himself was ordained by the Freemason Cardinal Liénart, casting doubt on the validity of his orders and those he conferred. Furthermore, the SSPX’s foundational error lies in its continued recognition of the conciliar usurpers as legitimate authorities, even while resisting some of their innovations. This position is untenable: either the conciliar structures are legitimate (in which case resistance to their authority is schism), or they are illegitimate (in which case recognition of their authority is itself a betrayal of Catholic truth).
The article notes that “the SSPX lacks a genuine desire to even engage in dialogue with the Holy See” because it “considers many of the Holy See’s decisions or approaches to be borderline heretical.” This assessment, while accurate regarding the SSPX’s perception, fails to recognize that the conciliar structures are not merely “borderline heretical” but openly and manifestly heretical, as demonstrated by the entire corpus of post-conciliar teaching contradicting the perennial magisterium. The SSPX’s error is not in recognizing this heresy but in failing to draw the necessary conclusion: that these structures have no authority whatsoever over the true Church.
The Hermeneutic of Continuity as False Narrative
The article’s description of Leo XIV’s approach to “traditionalist” groups reveals the subtle modernist strategy of co-optation and control. The mention of Leo’s “message of greeting to the Paris-Chartres pilgrimage” and his request for “exceptions” allowing bishops to extend celebration of the “traditional Latin Mass” demonstrates the conciliar tactic of offering cosmetic concessions while maintaining fundamental control. This is not a restoration of tradition but a managed toleration designed to neutralize opposition.
The reference to the Heralds of the Gospel being granted permission to ordain 26 new priests after years of suspension illustrates this dynamic perfectly. By maintaining the power to grant or withhold permissions, the conciliar structures ensure that any “traditional” practice remains dependent on modernist approval. This is precisely the strategy condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, proposition 19: “The Church is not a true and perfect society, entirely free—nor is she endowed with proper and perpetual rights of her own, conferred upon her by her Divine Founder; but it appertains to the civil power to define what are the rights of the Church, and the limits within which she may exercise those rights.” In the post-conciliar context, the “civil power” is replaced by the conciliar bureaucracy, but the principle of external control over the Church’s rights remains identical.
The article’s mention of the “Latin American civil war” between liberation theology and “more traditional movements” further exposes the false dichotomy of post-conciliar discourse. Both liberation theology and the “traditional movements” tolerated by the conciliar structures operate within the modernist framework established by Vatican II. As the file “Lamentabili sane exitu” demonstrates, Pius X condemned the very principles that underlie both positions: the evolution of dogmas (proposition 58), the democratization of the Church (propositions 6, 54), and the reduction of religion to social action (proposition 6).
The Mercy Heresy and the Destruction of Authority
The article’s observation that “the idea that the Pope must accept anything in the name of an unclear principle of mercy is an argument that cannot hold up, although it has been promoted many times since the Second Vatican Council” touches upon a crucial point while failing to draw the proper conclusion. The “mercy” invoked by the conciliar structures is not the supernatural mercy of God, which demands repentance and conversion, but a naturalistic sentimentality that denies the reality of sin and the necessity of justice.
This false mercy is the logical consequence of the modernist errors condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, particularly the reduction of faith to religious experience and the denial of the Church’s authority to define dogmas infallibly. When the article states that “the penalty of excommunication, however, is necessary for the Pope to demonstrate his authority within the Church,” it inadvertently reveals the conciliar understanding of authority as purely juridical and coercive, rather than as the spiritual authority of Christ acting through His true Church.
The true Church, as defined by the Council of Vatican I and taught by the perennial magisterium, possesses authority not through canonical penalties but through the promise of Christ: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). The conciliar structures, having abandoned the true faith, retain only the external forms of authority while lacking its substance. As Bellarmine teaches, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope precisely because he ceases to be a member of the Church, and therefore cannot exercise authority over it.
The Abomination of Desolation and the Call to True Tradition
The article’s concluding question—”Which side is Leo XIV on?”—answers itself through its own narrative. Leo XIV is on the side of the conciliar revolution, seeking to manage its contradictions rather than reject them. His “challenge” is not between truth and error but between two forms of apostasy: the progressive apostasy of the German bishops and the incomplete resistance of the SSPX.
The true Catholic position, as demonstrated by the documents cited in this analysis, is that the conciliar structures represent the “abomination of desolation” foretold by Our Lord (Matthew 24:15). The response of the faithful is not to seek accommodation with these structures but to maintain the integral Catholic faith outside their jurisdiction. As Pius IX declared 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.” This condemnation applies with equal force to the post-conciliar modernism, which has transformed the Catholic Church into a “broad and liberal Protestantism” (proposition 65 of Lamentabili).
The path forward is not the impossible balancing act proposed by the article but the uncompromising return to immutable Tradition: the true Mass of all time, the unchanging dogmas of the faith, and the recognition that Christ the King reigns over all nations and all aspects of human life. As Pius XI taught in Quas Primas, “the annual celebration of this solemnity will also remind states that not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” This duty does not depend on the approval of any human authority but flows directly from the kingship of Christ.
The conciliar experiment has failed not because it has been poorly managed but because it is fundamentally opposed to the divine constitution of the Church. The “unity” it seeks is not the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Ephesians 4:3) but the false unity of the “synagogue of Satan” described by Pius IX. The faithful must reject both the progressive apostasy of the German bishops and the compromised resistance of the SSPX, clinging instead to the true Church that endures in the integral Catholic faith, outside the structures of the modernist abomination.
Source:
Leo XIV and the Challenge of Tradition (ncregister.com)
Date: 05.05.2026