Vatican News portal reports on June 11, 2026, that the usurper Robert Prevost, styling himself “Pope Leo XIV,” addressed bishops, priests, deacons, religious, seminarians, and pastoral workers in St. Anne’s Cathedral in Las Palmas de Gran Canaria during his so-called “Apostolic Journey” to Spain. The article presents Prevost’s remarks as those of a “father and brother in the faith,” emphasizing themes of unity through the Cross and the Eucharist, migration, social accompaniment, and the “civilisation of love.” He quoted the Second Vatican Council’s *Lumen Gentium*, invoked the martyred John Paul II, and entrusted the local Church to “Stella Maris.” Yet beneath the veneer of pious rhetoric lies the unmistakable architecture of conciliar apostathy—a discourse from which the supernatural mission of the Catholic Church has been systematically gutted and replaced with naturalistic humanitarianism, false ecumenical charity, and the idolatry of man.
The “Living Church”: A Conciliar Heresy Cloaked in Augustinian Language
The article opens by summarizing Prevost’s self-description of the local Church as a “living Church” that reflects “the joys and hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time, especially those who are poor or afflicted.” This is a direct paraphrase of *Gaudium et Spes*, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World of the Second Vatican Council—a document condemned as heretical by Catholic theologians faithful to Tradition, since it implicitly denies the Church’s primary supernatural mission of leading souls to eternal salvation and instead reduces her to a mirror of temporal human concerns. As Pius IX taught in the Syllabus of Errors (1864), “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society” (Proposition 40) is itself a condemned error, for the Church’s mission is not to serve the world but to save souls from it. The Church is not a “living” organism in the modernist sense of perpetual evolution; she is the Mystical Body of Christ, una, sancta, catholica, et apostolica, founded upon the unchangeable deposit of faith. Pius XI, in Quas Primas (1925), declared: “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 Church does not exist to reflect the world’s hopes; she exists to proclaim Christ the King and His exclusive claim upon every soul.
Prevost’s self-presentation as a “father and brother in the faith,” recalling his own words from the beginning of his usurped pontificate—”With you I am a Christian, and for you, I am a bishop”—is a democratization of the episcopate condemned by the Council of Trent and by all prior magisterial teaching. The bishop is not a “brother” among equals in the manner of a democratic assembly; he is a father, a shepherd placed by the Holy Ghost to rule the flock (Acts 20:28). This fraternalist language is the hallmark of the conciliar revolution, which sought to dismantle the hierarchical constitution of the Church and replace it with a participatory, egalitarian model indistinguishable from Protestant congregationalism.
“Building the Church Together”: The Democratization of the Mystical Body
The article reports that Prevost reflected on the day’s reading from the Letter to the Ephesians, emphasizing “the importance of recognising the different gifts and ministries within the Church and using them to build unity.” He stated: “The Lord’s call resonates anew in our hearts today and confirms our vocation and mission: to build the Church together, founded on Christ, the ‘cornerstone.'”
This language of “building the Church together” is a modernist trope that inverts the divine constitution of the Church. The Church was built by Christ, not by the collective efforts of its members. Ecclesia aedificata est supra petram—the Church was built upon the rock of Peter and his successors, not upon the shifting sands of communal collaboration. St. Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 4 speaks of the varietas gratiarum (variety of graces) given for the edification of the body, but this edification is ordered under the authority of the apostles and their successors, not through a horizontal, democratic process. The Council of Trent taught that the hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons is of divine institution, not of human arrangement. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, was unequivocal: “The Church, established by Christ as a perfect society, demands for itself by a right belonging to it, which it cannot renounce, full freedom and independence from secular authority.” The Church is not a project to be “built together” by the faithful in assembly; she is a divine institution received, not constructed.
Furthermore, Prevost’s encouragement to “build on what is good, to harmonise our differences and to work together for the good of all” is the language of indifferentism—the condemned error that all religions and opinions contain sufficient good to serve as a basis for collaboration. Pius IX condemned this in the Syllabus: “Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true” (Proposition 15). The Church does not “harmonise differences”; she proclaims the truth and anathematizes error. Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—outside the Church there is no salvation—is not a “difference” to be harmonized but a dogma to be proclaimed.
“Carrying the Cross”: The Reduction of the Cross to a Symbol of Human Solidarity
The article describes Prevost’s reflection on “embracing the Cross of Christ” as the first of two essential attitudes for building what he called the “civilisation of love.” He used the image of the sea surrounding the Canary Islands, noting that while the ocean evokes home and belonging, it can also symbolize challenge, distance, and uncertainty. Quoting St. Augustine, he recalled that humanity longs for its true homeland but must cross “the sea of this world” to reach it. He stated: “No one is able to cross the sea of this world unless they carry the cross of Christ.”
On the surface, this appears orthodox. But the context reveals the modernist subtext. The Cross is presented not as the propitiatory sacrifice for sin, not as the instrument by which Christ satisfied divine justice and opened the gates of Heaven, but as a metaphor for the human condition of suffering and migration. The “civilisation of love” is not the Social Reign of Christ the King; it is the utopian dream of liberal Catholicism, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (Proposition 80): “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization.” Prevost’s Cross is emptied of its supernatural content and reduced to a symbol of solidarity with the suffering—a suffering that, in the context of this article, is explicitly linked to the migration crisis in the Canary Islands.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, taught that the Cross is the instrument of redemption: “May all men, prone to forgetfulness, consider how much our Savior cost us: You were redeemed not with corruptible gold or silver… but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.” The Cross is not a poetic image for the difficulties of life; it is the altar upon which the God-Man offered Himself for the remission of sins. To reduce it to a metaphor for human migration and social challenge is to commit the very error condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907), which rejected the modernist reduction of dogmas to “a certain interpretation of religious facts, which the human mind has worked out with great effort” (Proposition 22).
“Eucharistic Spirituality”: The Idolatry of the Conciliar “Eucharist”
The second attitude highlighted by Prevost was the need to cultivate a “Eucharistic spirituality.” He referred to the local tradition of showering flower petals before the Blessed Sacrament during celebrations of the Ascension, describing it as a reminder that Christ is the center of Christian life. He then quoted the Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium: “Cultivating a Eucharistic spirituality means delving deeper into ‘a spirituality of ecclesial unity in love.'”
This is perhaps the most egregious passage in the entire article, for it invokes the authority of the Second Vatican Council—the very event that marked the beginning of the systematic destruction of Catholic doctrine and worship. The Council of Trent taught that the Most Holy Eucharist is the true Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, together with His Soul and Divinity, under the species of bread and wine, and that in the Mass, a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice is offered for the living and the dead. The Novus Ordo Missae, promulgated by the apostate Paul VI in 1969, is a Protestantized rite that obscures the sacrificial character of the Mass and presents it as a communal meal—a convivium rather than a sacrificium. To speak of “Eucharistic spirituality” within the context of the conciliar sect is to speak of a spirituality centered on an idol, not on the true Christ.
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, declared: “Since Christ as Redeemer acquired the Church with His Blood, and as Priest offered Himself as a sacrifice for our sins and eternally offers it, to whom is it not evident that His royal authority contains both these offices and shares in them?” The Eucharist is inseparable from the Sacrifice of the Mass, and the Sacrifice of the Mass is inseparable from the true priesthood. The conciliar “Mass” is not the Mass; it is a counterfeit, and participation in it is not communion with Christ but communion with the spirit of the Antichrist. As the Syllabus of Errors (Proposition 65) condemned: “The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated”—and by extension, the conciliar redefinition of the Eucharist as a “memorial meal” rather than a propitiatory sacrifice is equally intolerable.
“Three Stars”: The Invocation of John Paul II as Doctrinal Authority
The article concludes by noting that Prevost urged the faithful to remain united in faith, hope, and charity, describing those virtues, “in the words of Saint John Paul II,” as “three stars that rise in the sky of our spiritual life to guide us to God.” This invocation of John Paul II as a doctrinal authority is itself a scandal. The man known as John Paul II (Karol Wojtyła) was a manifest heretic and apostate who embraced the conciliar revolution, promoted false ecumenism (Assisi 1986), kissed the Koran, and canonized individuals whose sanctity is at best questionable and at worst fraudulent. He was never a valid pope, as he defected from the Catholic faith—a defection that, according to the teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, results in the automatic loss of papal jurisdiction: “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, II:30).
To invoke John Paul II as a teacher of the faith is to invoke a heretic as an authority—an act that is itself a participation in his heresy. The true “stars” that guide the faithful to God are not the virtues as reinterpreted by a modernist antipope; they are the theological virtues of faith, hope, and charity as taught by the unchanging Magisterium and practiced by the saints of the true Church—saints like St. Pius X, who condemned Modernism as “the synthesis of all heresies,” and St. Robert Bellarmine, who taught that a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.
The Omission That Condemns: Silence on the Supernatural Mission
What is most striking about this article is not what it says but what it omits. There is no mention of the necessity of conversion to the Catholic faith for salvation. There is no mention of the reality of sin, the need for confession, the obligation to receive the true sacraments, or the reality of eternal damnation. There is no mention of the Social Reign of Christ the King over nations and individuals. There is no mention of the obligation of Catholic rulers to govern according to divine law. There is no mention of the errors of Modernism, liberalism, indifferentism, or religious liberty—all condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
Instead, the article presents a Church that exists to “accompany” migrants, to “build unity,” to “harmonize differences,” and to promote a “civilisation of love.” This is not the Catholic Church; it is the Church of the New Advent, the paramasonic structure that occupies the Vatican, the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matthew 24:15). As Pius IX warned in the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80)—and this is precisely what the conciliar antipopes have done, from John XXIII to Leo XIV.
The faithful who desire salvation must reject this counterfeit Church and cling to the true Catholic faith, unchanging and eternal, as taught by the Fathers, the Councils, and the Popes before the conciliar apostasy. Statuat veritas in via nostra—let truth stand firm on our path, though the world and the conciliar sect collapse around us.
Source:
Pope in Canary Islands: Remain united through the Cross and the Eucharist (vaticannews.va)
Date: 11.06.2026