EWTN News reports that on June 7, 2026, the Movistar Arena in Madrid became a stage for the conciliar sect’s theatrical performance of “dialogue” between faith and culture, featuring actor Antonio Banderas, badminton player Carolina Marín, and various academics and labor representatives before the antipope Leo XIV. The event, themed “Lift up your gaze,” presented the neo-church’s program of “weaving networks” – a euphemism for the subordination of supernatural truth to secular concerns – while Banderas declared himself “a victim of God’s spell” and the antipope reduced the Church’s mission to social dialogue and cultural engagement, conspicuously omitting any mention of the conversion of souls, the necessity of the sacraments, or the Social Kingship of Christ. This gathering epitomizes the post-conciliar abomination: a naturalistic parody of the Church’s true mission, replacing the preaching of the Gospel with the worship of human culture and the common good without God.
The “Court of the Gentiles”: A Masonic Blueprint for the Neo-Church
The very terminology employed – “Court of the Gentiles” – reveals the ideological substructure of this event. This concept, originating in Benedict XVI’s pontificate, was explicitly designed to create a space for dialogue with non-believers without demanding their conversion, thereby institutionalizing religious indifferentism. The Syllabus of Errors condemned this very proposition: “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). Pius IX further warned that the civil liberty of every form of worship and the public manifestation of all opinions “conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people, and to propagate the pest of indifferentism” (Proposition 79).
The gathering in Madrid was not an isolated event but a deliberate implementation of the conciliar revolution’s program to transform the Church from the City of God into a servant of the City of Man. The presence of Antonio Banderas, who directed the musical “Godspell” – a work that sentimentalizes and trivializes the Gospel – and his declaration that he is “a victim of God’s spell,” exemplifies the reduction of divine grace to a natural, almost magical, phenomenon. This is not Catholic theology but naturalism, condemned by Pius IX: “All action of God upon man and the world is to be denied” (Proposition 2).
The Antipope’s Omission: Silence on the Supernatural
The most damning aspect of Leo XIV’s address is what he did not say. In his remarks, he spoke of “weaving networks,” “encounter, listening, dialogue, and respect,” and posed the question: “What does it mean to be truly human?” His answer: “The Church shares with humility, but also with firmness, what she has discovered through the experience of faith: that Jesus Christ responds to the great questions about human life and its fullness.”
This is a masterclass in modernist evasion. Nowhere did the antipope mention:
– The necessity of baptism for salvation: “Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5).
– The obligation to convert to the Catholic Church: “Outside the Church there is no salvation” (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus).
– The reality of sin, the need for confession, and the state of grace.
– The Social Kingship of Christ over nations and the duty of rulers to publicly acknowledge Him.
– The reality of hell and the eternal consequences of apostasy.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the secularism that Leo XIV’s address embodies:
“The Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men… His reign 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.”
Leo XIV’s “weaving networks” is the antithesis of this teaching. It is the Church of the New Advent’s program to build bridges with the world – not to convert the world to Christ, but to accommodate Christ to the world. This is the heresy of modernism, condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis: “The Church is an enemy of the progress of natural and theological sciences” (Proposition 58) – a proposition Leo XIV’s entire pontificate seeks to overturn by embracing secular culture, art, and science as partners rather than subjects of the Church’s mission.
The Linguistic Betrayal: “Dialogue” as Apostasy
The language employed throughout the event is revelatory. Terms like “encounter,” “listening,” “dialogue,” “respect,” “common good,” and “weaving networks” are the vocabulary of the post-conciliar revolution, deliberately chosen to obscure the absence of supernatural content. This is the language of irenicism – the false peace that comes from avoiding the proclamation of hard truths.
St. Pius X, in Lamentabili Sane Exitu, condemned the modernist proposition that “the Church listening cooperates in such a way with the Church teaching in defining truths of faith, that the Church teaching should only approve the common opinions of the Church listening” (Proposition 6). Leo XIV’s entire approach – gathering representatives of culture, labor, academia, and sport to “share concerns and challenges” – is precisely this: the Magisterium reduced to a listening post, approving the “common opinions” of the secular world rather than imposing the truths of faith upon it.
The antipope’s citation of his own encyclical “Magnifica humanitas” – a title that itself reveals the anthropocentric focus of the neo-church – and his question “What does it mean to be truly human?” is a classic modernist maneuver. As St. Pius X explained, modernism holds that “revelation was merely man’s self-awareness of his relationship to God” (Proposition 20) and that “the dogmas which the Church proposes as revealed are not truths of divine origin but are a certain interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind has worked out with great effort” (Proposition 22). By making “the human” the central question, Leo XIV inverts the proper order: it is not man who defines his relationship to God, but God who defines man’s nature, purpose, and destiny.
The “Common Good” Without Christ: A Satanic Substitution
Leo XIV’s statement that “Christ restores the common good to its central place as an arbiter that calms the greed of some and nourishes the hope of others, while desiring to save them all” is a heretical universalism disguised as Catholic social teaching. The phrase “desiring to save them all” – without any mention of the necessity of faith, baptism, or membership in the Catholic Church – echoes the condemned proposition: “Good hope at least is to be entertained of the eternal salvation of all those who are not at all in the true Church of Christ” (Proposition 17, Syllabus of Errors).
The “common good” as presented by the antipope is a purely naturalistic concept – hospitals, schools, charitable initiatives, fair labor practices – stripped of its supernatural foundation. Pius XI taught 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” (Quas Primas), but he insisted that this harmony is only possible when both individuals and states recognize the reign of Christ. Leo XIV’s “common good” is the common good of the secular humanist, not the common good of the City of God.
The Omission of the True Church’s Mission
The most glaring absence in the entire event was any mention of the Church’s true mission: the salvation of souls through preaching, the administration of the sacraments, and the formation of the faithful in the integral Catholic faith. There was no call to conversion, no exhortation to receive the sacraments, no warning about the dangers of sin and hell, no proclamation of the necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation.
This silence is not accidental; it is the defining characteristic of the post-conciliar apostasy. The neo-church has replaced the supernatural with the natural, the eternal with the temporal, and the divine with the human. As the False Fatima Apparitions document notes, the modernist project focuses on external threats while ignoring the main danger: “modernist apostasy within the Church since the beginning of the 20th century”. Leo XIV’s Madrid gathering is a perfect illustration of this diversion: the “challenges of the future” are framed entirely in terms of social fragmentation, economic inequality, and cultural polarization – never in terms of the apostasy of the faithful, the loss of faith, or the spiritual ruin wrought by the conciliar reforms.
The “Spiritual Imprint” of Europe: A Heretical Question
The antipope’s question – “Is it really possible to believe that Europe – which we love so much – would be itself without the imprint of faith? Why fear that eternity might permeate daily life?” – is breathtaking in its inversion of reality. The true question is not whether Europe can exist without the imprint of faith, but whether the neo-church’s version of “faith” is the Catholic faith at all. The “imprint of faith” that Leo XIV promotes is not the faith of the martyrs, the Fathers, and the Doctors, but the faith of the conciliar revolution – a faith that has been emptied of its supernatural content and reduced to social activism and cultural engagement.
Pius IX warned: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80, Syllabus of Errors) – a proposition condemned as heretical. Leo XIV’s entire pontificate is a living embodiment of this condemned proposition. His “weaving networks” with the secular world is not the Church engaging with culture on her own terms; it is the Church surrendering to culture on the world’s terms.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation in the Holy Place
The Madrid gathering was not a “dialogue between faith and culture” but a capitulation of the former to the latter. It was a spectacle designed to demonstrate the neo-church’s relevance to the contemporary world – a relevance purchased at the price of the Church’s supernatural mission. Antonio Banderas’ “victim of God’s spell” is not a Catholic confession but a naturalistic sentimentality. Carolina Marín’s presence is not a witness to the faith but a celebration of human achievement. The academics, labor representatives, and employers are not seekers of truth but stakeholders in a secular order that the neo-church has chosen to serve rather than to convert.
The true Church – the Church of the ages, the Church of the martyrs and the Doctors, the Church that teaches with authority and administers the sacraments with power – was absent from the Movistar Arena. In its place stood the conciar sect, the abomination of desolation, the paramasonic structure that occupies the Vatican and masquerades as the Church of Christ while preaching another gospel, another Christ, and another spirit.
“If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:9).
Source:
Antonio Banderas tells Pope Leo XIV: 'I am a victim of God’s spell’ (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 07.06.2026