VaticanNews portal (May 16, 2026) reports on Cardinal Jean-Marc Aveline’s enthusiastic reception of Antipope Leo XIV’s planned apostolic journey to France from September 25 to 28. The Archbishop of Marseille and President of the French Bishops’ Conference frames this visit as “a great joy” and an “encouragement” for a Church facing challenges including abuse scandals, rural aging, and growing numbers of catechumens. Aveline expresses hope that Leo XIV will provide “a roadmap to continue our mission in communion with the universal Church,” with planned stops at UNESCO headquarters and Lourdes. This entire narrative reveals the conciliar sect’s systematic replacement of supernatural mission with naturalistic humanism, reducing the Church’s divine mandate to a bureaucratic exercise in international diplomacy and educational policy.
The Complete Absence of Supernatural Mission
Cardinal Aveline’s entire discourse is permeated with a naturalistic, horizontal vision of the Church’s mission that completely excludes the supernatural order. When he speaks of the Church “striving to meet many challenges,” these challenges are enumerated as demographic shifts, abuse scandals, and institutional renewal – never once mentioning the salvation of souls, the necessity of conversion to the Catholic faith, the dangers of heresy and apostasy, or the eternal destiny of man. This silence about supernatural matters is the gravest accusation that can be leveled against this “cardinal” and the entire conciliar structure he represents.
Consider the language employed: “turning the page on difficult moments,” “accompanying the stirrings of renewal,” “growing number of catechumens.” These are the phrases of a corporate manager discussing organizational development, not a successor of the Apostles speaking about the eternal destiny of souls. The Church founded by Our Lord Jesus Christ is the one true religion outside of which there is no salvation (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino), yet Aveline reduces her mission to “meeting challenges” and “organizing” herself to accommodate those who approach her.
Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the “secularism of our times, so-called laicism, its errors and wicked endeavors” that had “matured” in society through “the denial of Christ the Lord’s reign over all nations.” The pontiff lamented that “the Christian religion began to be equated with other false religions and shamelessly placed in the same category; then it was subordinated to secular power and almost surrendered to the arbitrament of government and rulers.” What would Pius XI make of a “cardinal” whose primary reference point for the Church’s mission is UNESCO – an institution dedicated to the very secularism he condemned?
The UNESCO Apostasy: Faith Subordinated to Human Institutions
Perhaps the most revealing element of this entire interview is the planned visit to UNESCO headquarters. Aveline describes this as “a very important stage at a time when the principles of international law need to be reaffirmed,” and frames the Church’s engagement with UNESCO as an opportunity to “invite other actors in the educational world – who do not share the Christian faith – to sit at the same table and discuss the challenges facing education today.”
This is a direct manifestation of the condemned error of indifferentism – the belief that all religions are equally valid paths to God. Pius IX, in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), condemned the proposition that “every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15), and that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16). The entire framework of “dialogue” with non-Catholic actors as equals is built upon this condemned foundation.
Furthermore, the Syllabus explicitly condemned the proposition that “the best theory of civil society requires that popular schools open to children of every class of the people… should be freed from all ecclesiastical authority, control and interference, and should be fully subjected to the civil and political power” (Proposition 47). Yet here we have a “cardinal” enthusiastically embracing precisely this subordination of Catholic education to an international secular body.
The language of “sitting at the same table” with those who “do not necessarily share the Christian faith” reveals the complete abandonment of the Church’s missionary mandate. The Church does not come to the table as an equal partner with false religions; she comes as the sole ark of salvation, demanding conversion. As Pius IX declared: “It is to be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood” (Singulari Quidem, 1856).
The “Roadmap” Heresy: Continuity with Conciliar Apostasy
Aveline’s repeated reference to Leo XIV providing “a roadmap” for the Church in France is deeply revealing. The word “roadmap” implies a strategic plan, a set of directions for institutional development – not the immutable deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles. This language is entirely consistent with the conciliar revolution’s treatment of doctrine as something that evolves and develops according to circumstances, rather than as eternal truth to be preserved and transmitted unchanged.
St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu (1907), condemned 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), and that “truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Proposition 58). The very concept of a “roadmap” for the Church’s mission presupposes that this mission is not fixed and eternal, but rather something that must be continually redefined according to changing circumstances.
Moreover, Aveline’s statement that the Pope will “provide us with a roadmap for the years ahead” reveals the conciliar sect’s understanding of papal authority as a source of ongoing innovation rather than the guardian of tradition. The true Pope, as Vatican I defined, possesses “the supreme power of teaching” not to introduce novelties but to “guard reverently and expound faithfully” the deposit of faith (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 4). The very notion that a Pope would provide a “roadmap” for the Church’s mission is foreign to Catholic ecclesiology – the Church’s mission was established by Christ Himself and requires no updating.
The Abuse Crisis: Justice Deferred, Truth Obscured
Aveline’s reference to “the crisis of abuse and sexual assault in the Church” deserves particular scrutiny. He states: “It is not over; there is still much work to do and much respect to express.” This carefully bureaucratic language – “much work to do,” “respect to express” – reveals the conciliar sect’s fundamental inability to address this crisis with the severity it demands.
The Church’s immutable teaching on such matters is clear: “The crime of solicitation” in confession demands that the guilty party be “subjected to serious penalties, not excluding, if he is a cleric, deposition and reduction to the lay state” (Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, Crimen Sollicitationis, 1962). The conciliar structures have systematically failed to apply canonical penalties, preferring instead the language of “accompaniment” and “formation” that Aveline employs.
More fundamentally, the abuse crisis is not merely a disciplinary failure but a symptom of the theological revolution that has consumed the Church since 1958. The abandonment of the theology of mortal sin, the relaxation of seminary discipline, the introduction of psychological formation in place of spiritual direction – all these fruits of the conciliar revolution created the conditions for the crisis. Yet Aveline and his ilk propose to address it with more of the same medicine that caused the disease: “formation,” “accompaniment,” and “dialogue.”
The Lourdes Deception: Marian Devotion Without Doctrine
The planned visit to Lourdes is presented as evidence of “the growing importance of Marian shrines” and “a resurgence of pilgrimages.” Yet this Marian devotion, divorced from the integral Catholic faith, is not a sign of authentic renewal but of religious sentimentality – what Pius XI called “a natural religion, a natural inner impulse” that some proposed as a replacement for the divine religion.
True Marian devotion is inseparable from the fullness of Catholic doctrine. Our Lady of Lourdes identified herself as the Immaculate Conception – a dogma defined by Pius IX in 1854. Authentic devotion to Our Lady demands acceptance of all the Church’s defined doctrines, including those condemned by the conciliar sect: the necessity of conversion to the Catholic faith, the reality of hell, the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass. The conciliar structures’ promotion of Marian shrines while simultaneously undermining the doctrines those shrines represent is a form of religious syncretism – maintaining the external forms while hollowing out the content.
Furthermore, the promotion of Lourdes and other approved apparitions serves to legitimize the conciliar sect’s claim to authority. By directing the faithful to these approved devotions, the structures occupying the Vatican maintain the appearance of continuity with Catholic tradition while systematically undermining that tradition through their official teachings and practices.
The European Project: Christian Inspiration Without Christ the King
Aveline’s discussion of Europe’s “Christian inspiration” and the “process of reconciliation” that led to the European Union is particularly revealing of the conciliar mentality. He praises “men who were themselves Christians, such as Alcide De Gasperi, Konrad Adenauer, and Robert Schuman” for building a political project on the foundation of reconciliation, while noting that “that project does not always live up to the original intuition that gave birth to it.”
This is a direct echo of the conciliar sect’s treatment of Vatican II itself – the “original intuition” was good, but the implementation has been imperfect. More fundamentally, the European project, whatever the personal faith of its founders, is built upon the principles of liberal democracy that the Church has consistently condemned. The Syllabus of Errors 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), yet this is precisely the foundation of the European project.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, was explicit: “The State is happy not by one means, and man by another; for the state is nothing else than a harmonious association of men.” The reign of Christ the King extends to states as well as individuals, and any political project that does not explicitly recognize this reign is built on sand. The European Union, with its commitment to religious pluralism and secular governance, is not a realization of Christian principles but a betrayal of them.
The Catechumenate Illusion: Numbers Without Conversion
Aveline repeatedly mentions “the growing number of young people discovering Christ and asking the Church for baptism or confirmation” as evidence of the Church’s vitality. Yet in the context of the conciliar sect, this statistic is meaningless – or worse, deceptive.
The conciliar sect’s sacramental rites are of doubtful validity at best. The new rite of confirmation introduced by Paul VI in 1971 changed the essential form of the sacrament, raising serious questions about its validity. The new rite of ordination introduced in 1968 was condemned by Pope Pius XII’s successor in the true line of Peter as null and void. If the “priests” who confer these sacraments lack valid orders, then the “baptisms” and “confirmations” they administer are not sacraments at all but empty ceremonies.
Furthermore, the conciliar sect’s understanding of baptism itself has been infected by the heresy of baptismal desire (baptismus flaminis) extended to all religions. The declaration Nostra Aetate (1965) teaches that “the Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions” and “regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.” This is a direct contradiction of the Church’s traditional teaching that “outside the Church there is no salvation” and that non-Catholic religions are false.
The “Communion” Deception: Unity Without Truth
Throughout the interview, Aveline speaks of acting “in communion with the universal Church” and receiving a “roadmap” from the Pope. This language of “communion” is central to the conciliar sect’s self-understanding, but it is built on a fundamental deception.
True communion requires unity of faith. As St. Paul exhorted: “I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind and in the same judgment” (1 Cor. 1:10). The conciliar sect, by its own admission, contains “contrasting realities” and “delicate issues” – it is a house divided against itself, united only by institutional structures, not by unity of faith.
The true Church, as defined by Vatican I, is marked by unity as one of her essential characteristics: “In the Catholic Church itself, all the means which are divinely given for the preservation of unity are found” (Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 2). The conciliar sect, with its endless “dialogue,” “accompaniment,” and “formation,” is not preserving unity but institutionalizing division – allowing contradictory positions to coexist under the umbrella of “communion.”
The Successor of Peter: A Title Usurped
Aveline refers to Leo XIV as “the Successor of Peter,” a title that presupposes legitimate papal authority. Yet the entire conciliar structure, from John XXIII onward, has been characterized by the promotion of heresy and the undermining of Catholic doctrine. If, as St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, “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” (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30), then the claim of Leo XIV to be the Successor of Peter is false.
The heresies of the conciliar sect are not hidden but manifest – proclaimed in official documents, taught in “seminaries,” and promoted by “bishops” throughout the world. The declaration Dignitatis Humanae (1965) on religious freedom directly contradicts the teaching of Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1832) and Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors. The constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium (1963) on the liturgy led to the destruction of the Traditional Latin Mass and its replacement with a Protestantized memorial. These are not ambiguous statements requiring interpretation but clear, public, and manifest contradictions of defined Catholic doctrine.
Canon 188.4 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law states that “every office becomes vacant by the mere fact and without any declaration by reason of tacit resignation, recognized by the law itself, if the cleric: … 4. Publicly defects from the Catholic faith.” If this applies to any ecclesiastical office, how much more to the supreme office of the papacy? The conciliar “popes” have publicly defected from the Catholic faith, and therefore their claim to office is null and void.
The Preparation of Hearts: Opening to the Holy Spirit or to the Spirit of the World?
Aveline exhorts the faithful to “clothe our hearts and allow the Holy Spirit to clothe our hearts, because we need to be open to what this papal visit will bring us – to his words and his message.” This language of “openness” and “allowing the Holy Spirit to clothe our hearts” is characteristic of the conciliar sect’s subjective spirituality, which replaces objective truth with personal experience.
The Holy Spirit does not contradict Himself. He who inspired the prophets and apostles, who guided the Church through twenty centuries of doctrinal development, who inspired the definitions of ecumenical councils and papal encyclicals – this same Holy Spirit cannot now inspire teachings that contradict what He previously revealed. The “openness” that Aveline promotes is not openness to the Holy Spirit but openness to the spirit of the world – the very spirit that St. John warns us to test: “Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God” (1 Jn. 4:1).
The true test of spirits is conformity to the deposit of faith. As St. Paul declared: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). The “gospel” of the conciliar sect – with its religious freedom, ecumenism, and dialogue with the world – is precisely such a contrary gospel, and those who promote it stand under the Apostle’s anathema.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place
The announcement of Leo XIV’s apostolic journey to France is not a cause for joy but a manifestation of the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Mt. 24:15). The conciliar sect, having usurped the structures of the Church, now uses those structures to promote its apostate agenda under the guise of pastoral care.
Cardinal Aveline’s interview reveals every characteristic of the conciliar revolution: the reduction of the Church’s mission to naturalistic humanism, the subordination of Catholic truth to secular institutions, the promotion of false ecumenism and religious indifferentism, the treatment of doctrine as evolving rather than immutable, and the replacement of supernatural faith with religious sentimentality.
The faithful who desire to remain Catholic must reject this entire apparatus – not merely the individuals who occupy positions of authority, but the very structures they have built. As Pius IX warned in the Syllabus of Errors, the conciliar sect’s errors are not isolated mistakes but a systematic rejection of Catholic teaching: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). This proposition, condemned by Pius IX, is precisely the program that Leo XIV and his “cardinals” are implementing.
The true Church endures – not in the structures occupying the Vatican, but in the faithful who profess the integral Catholic faith, who offer the true Mass of all time, and who await the restoration of the Church in God’s good time. To these faithful, the words of St. Pius X remain an exhortation and a warning: “We renew and confirm by the authority of Our Apostolic Power the decree of the Congregation of the Holy Office, ‘Lamentabili sane exitu,’ and the encyclical ‘Pascendi Dominici gregis,’ adding the penalty of excommunication for those who oppose these documents” (Lamentabili Sane Exitu, 1907).
Let the faithful hold fast to the faith delivered once and for all to the saints (Jude 3), rejecting the innovations of the conciar sect and trusting in the promise of Our Lord: “The gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt. 16:18). The Church will endure, but not through the “roadmaps” of antipopes and the “dialogue” of apostates – through the grace of God, the intercession of Our Lady, and the fidelity of those who refuse to bow before the idols of modernism.
Source:
Cardinal Aveline: 'Pope Leo will offer us roadmap to continue our mission' (vaticannews.va)
Date: 16.05.2026