EWTN News portal reports on the June 6–12, 2026, visit of the usurper Robert Prevost — who styles himself “Pope Leo XIV” — to Spain, covering Madrid, Barcelona, the Canary Islands, and Tenerife. The article catalogs ten “powerful moments” from this journey, including a Corpus Christi procession in Madrid allegedly attended by 1.6 million people, a meeting with “abuse victims,” an address to the Spanish Parliament, the bestowal of a Golden Rose upon the statue of Our Lady of Almudena, a visit to the Abbey of Montserrat, veneration of the tomb of the “Venerable” Antoni Gaudí, the celebration of a “Mass” and inauguration of the Tower of Jesus Christ at the Sagrada Familia Basilica, a blessing of a cross made from migrant boat wood at the Port of Arguineguín, and a denunciation of human traffickers in Tenerife. Throughout, the article presents Prevost as the legitimate successor of St. Peter, the “Holy Father,” and the head of the “Church,” employing the full panoply of conciliar terminology — “Petrine ministry,” “Eucharistic blessing,” “heroic virtue,” “canonization process” — while omitting any reference to the true state of the conciliar sect as an apostate structure devoid of jurisdiction, and reducing the supernatural mission of the Catholic Church to humanitarian activism, emotional sentimentality, and the advancement of the very errors condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. This spectacle, far from being a Catholic apostolate, is a meticulously staged operation of the abomination of desolation occupying the Vatican, designed to consolidate the global prestige of the neo-church while systematically excluding the one thing necessary: the proclamation of the integral Catholic Faith, the Social Kingship of Christ, and the call to true conversion through the sacraments of the true Church.
The Corpus Christi Procession Without the King: A Parade Without a Throne
The article opens with what it considers the most “stunning” moment: 1.6 million people gathered in Madrid’s Plaza de Cibeles for a Eucharistic procession on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi. The sheer scale is presented as self-evidently triumphant — proof that the conciliar sect retains spiritual vitality. But what, precisely, was being celebrated? Prevost declared that Corpus Christi is “more than just another celebration on the liturgical calendar … It is a way of returning to the heart of the faith to renew our love and fidelity to God.” This is the language of sentimental piety, not of Catholic doctrine. Where is the proclamation that the Eucharist is the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary, the propitiatory offering for the sins of the living and the dead? Where is the affirmation that the true Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament demands not merely “love and fidelity” but adoration, reparation, and the total submission of every faculty of soul and body?
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, established the Feast of Christ the King precisely to combat the secularism that removes Christ from public life. He wrote: “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.” Yet in this entire article — spanning ten “powerful moments” across an entire papal journey — there is not a single mention of the Social Kingship of Christ, not a single call for Spain or any nation to publicly recognize the dominion of Christ the King over civil society. The procession is stripped of its theological substance and reduced to a massive public gathering, a spectacle of collective emotion. This is the conciliar method: retain the external forms while hollowing out the doctrinal content, transforming the Most Holy Sacrament from the center of Catholic worship and the sign of Christ’s sovereign lordship into a mascot for humanitarian solidarity.
The 1.6 million participants are presented as an unqualified triumph. But the question that must be asked — and that the article, in its servile journalism, never raises — is: how many of these people were in the state of sanctifying grace? How many had made a good Confession before receiving the “Eucharist” in the conciliar rite, which, as the Defense of Sedevacantism file demonstrates, is administered by men who have ipso facto lost all jurisdiction by reason of manifest heresy? Bellarmine is unequivocal: “A manifest heretic cannot be Pope… a manifest heretic is not a Christian… therefore, a manifest heretic cannot be Pope.” The entire conciliar structure, from John XXIII through Leo XIV, is built upon the manifest heresies of Vatican II — religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality — all of which were condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium. Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors condemned the proposition that “the Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” (Proposition 80). The “Mass” celebrated by Prevost in Madrid is the product of this very reconciliation with modernity — the Pauline VI rite, a Protestantized assembly condemned by the Catholic Church for centuries. To process behind this abomination with 1.6 million people is not a triumph; it is a mass act of idolatry, a collective turning away from the true God toward the idol of human fraternity.
The “Abuse Victims” Theater: Justice Without Doctrine, Reparation Without Repentance
The article reports that Prevost met with six “victims of abuse committed by members of the clergy and the Church,” during which the victims shared their “painful personal experiences” and presented “proposals to make the Church’s response more effective.” Prevost urged Spanish “bishops” to respond with “listening, truth, justice, reparation, and an ever-more-determined commitment to prevention and a culture of care,” adding that “every wounded person must be able to find sincere listening, welcome, protection, and real paths to healing.”
This passage is a textbook example of the conciliar substitution of naturalistic humanitarianism for supernatural justice. The language is drawn entirely from the vocabulary of secular psychology and human rights discourse — “listening,” “welcome,” “protection,” “healing,” “culture of care.” Where is the language of sin, repentance, sacramental confession, satisfaction, and the eternal consequences of mortal sin? Where is the acknowledgment that the abuse crisis is not merely a disciplinary failure but the direct and predictable fruit of the conciliar revolution — the destruction of seminary formation, the abandonment of Thomistic moral theology, the introduction of psychological screening that replaced the discernment of spirits, and the systematic cover-up enabled by a hierarchical structure that has lost all supernatural authority?
The False Fatima Apparitions file notes that the conciliar sect consistently focuses on external threats while ignoring the main danger: “modernist apostasy within the Church since the beginning of the 20th century.” The abuse scandal is not an aberration within an otherwise healthy system; it is the logical consequence of a system that has abandoned the Catholic understanding of the priesthood, the sacraments, and the moral law. Pius X, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, warned that the Modernists — the “enemies within” — would corrupt the Church from the inside. The abuse crisis is one of the fruits of this corruption. Yet Prevost’s response is not to call for a return to integral Catholic doctrine, the restoration of the true Mass, the reestablishment of orthodox seminary formation, and the condemnation of the conciliar errors that created the conditions for the crisis. Instead, he offers “listening” and “healing” — the language of a therapist, not a pope. This is not justice; it is the perpetuation of the very system that produced the injustice.
Furthermore, the article’s framing of the meeting as a “powerful moment” reveals the conciliar obsession with appearances of compassion rather than the substance of justice. True justice for abuse victims would require the prosecution of guilty clergy under canon law, the defrocking of those who have violated their sacred vows, and the public condemnation of the bishops who enabled the cover-ups. Instead, we have a carefully staged meeting, a photo opportunity, and a set of empty platitudes. The victims are used as props in the conciliar theater of relevance, their suffering instrumentalized to lend moral authority to a structure that has no moral authority whatsoever.
Addressing the Spanish Parliament: The Social Kingship of Christ Erased
The article proudly notes that Prevost became “the first pope in history to address the Spanish Parliament,” receiving nearly seven minutes of applause for a speech that “urged lawmakers to protect human life from conception until natural death.” This is presented as a historic milestone — the “Holy Father” engaging with the democratic process, bringing moral authority to the legislative arena.
But what did Prevost actually say? The article provides only a single, carefully sanitized sentence: he urged the protection of human life. This is the conciliar method of engagement with the state — the reduction of the Church’s social teaching to a single issue (abortion), stripped of its theological foundation and presented in the language of secular human rights. Where is the demand that Spain publicly recognize the Catholic Faith as the sole religion of the state, as required by Catholic doctrine? Where is the condemnation of the separation of Church and State, condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus (Proposition 55: “The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church”)? Where is the call for the repeal of laws permitting divorce, contraception, and the indoctrination of youth in public schools — all of which are condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium?
Pius XI, in Quas Primas, was explicit: “The state must leave the same freedom to the members of Orders and Congregations, both male and female, who are indeed the most valiant helpers of the Pastors of the Church and contribute most to the expansion and establishment of Christ’s Kingdom.” He further stated that rulers have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him, and that “the entire government of public schools… may and ought to appertain to the civil power” only in a manner consistent with Catholic doctrine — a principle directly contradicted by the conciar acceptance of secular education. The Syllabus 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” (Proposition 47).
Prevost’s address to the Spanish Parliament is not a Catholic act; it is a modernist one. It accepts the legitimacy of the secular democratic order, engages with it on its own terms, and reduces the Church’s message to a set of policy recommendations compatible with liberal democracy. This is precisely the “reconciliation with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” that Pius IX condemned as the final and most damning error of the Syllabus (Proposition 80). The seven minutes of applause from Spanish lawmakers are not a sign of Catholic triumph; they are proof that Prevost said exactly what the enemies of Christ wanted to hear.
The Golden Rose and Our Lady of Almudena: Marian Devotion Without the Conditions of True Conversion
The article describes Prevost’s bestowal of a Golden Rose upon the statue of Our Lady of Almudena, the patron saint of Madrid, recounting the traditional story of the statue’s concealment during the Moorish invasion and its miraculous rediscovery in 1085. This is presented as a recognition of the “deep devotion generations of Spanish Catholics have shown to the Blessed Virgin.”
The problem is not with Marian devotion per se — the Catholic Church has always encouraged devotion to the Blessed Virgin as the surest path to Christ. The problem is with the context in which this devotion is exercised within the conciliar sect. The Golden Rose is a papal honor, but Prevost is not a pope. He is a usurper who occupies the Vatican by virtue of an election process controlled by manifest heretics, and who exercises no jurisdiction in the Church of Christ. His “bestowal” of a Golden Rose is an empty gesture — a simulation of a papal act performed by a man who has no authority to perform it.
Moreover, the article’s recounting of the Almudena legend, while piously intended, serves a deeper conciliar purpose: the reinforcement of a national Catholic identity that is detached from the universal claims of the Faith. The story of Madrid’s devotion to Our Lady of Almudena is a beautiful part of Spanish Catholic heritage, but when it is celebrated by a man who simultaneously addresses parliaments in the language of human rights, meets with abuse victims in the language of psychology, and celebrates a “Mass” that is a Protestantized assembly, it becomes part of a larger project: the transformation of Catholicism from a supernatural religion demanding the conversion of all nations into a cultural heritage compatible with secular modernity. This is the very essence of Modernism, condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili Sane Exitu as the error that “truth changes with man, because it develops with him, in him, and through him” (Proposition 58).
Montserrat and “La Moreneta”: Marian Piety as Ecumenical Bridge
At the Abbey of Montserrat, Prevost prayed the rosary before the 12th-century statue of Our Lady of Montserrat (“La Moreneta”) and declared: “Let us also consider how the Virgin holds the globe in her right hand, a sign of her maternal care, for the whole world finds a place in her heart. She invites us to recognize one another as brothers and sisters, so that no one is excluded and that communion is stronger than every division.”
This statement is a masterpiece of conciliar double-speak. On the surface, it is a beautiful expression of Marian devotion. But examine the language carefully: “the whole world finds a place in her heart,” “recognize one another as brothers and sisters,” “no one is excluded,” “communion is stronger than every division.” This is not the language of Catholic Mariology; it is the language of Vatican II’s ecumenism and religious indifferentism. The implication is clear: Mary’s maternal care extends equally to all — Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, atheists — and the goal is not the conversion of souls to the Catholic Faith but the establishment of a universal “communion” that transcends doctrinal divisions.
This directly contradicts the teaching of the pre-conciliar Magisterium. Pius IX, in the Syllabus, condemned the proposition that “man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Proposition 16) and that “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). The Catholic Church has always taught extra Ecclesiam nulla salus — outside the Church there is no salvation. Mary’s maternal care is real, but it is exercised for the sake of bringing souls into the Catholic Church, not for the sake of affirming the spiritual equality of all religions. Prevost’s words at Montserrat are not Catholic; they are the very errors condemned by the Syllabus and by the consistent teaching of the pre-conciliar popes.
Furthermore, Prevost’s declaration that he came “to entrust to her, with full confidence in her maternal intercession, my Petrine ministry and the mission of the Church in a world that cries out for justice and peace” is a claim to legitimate authority that he does not possess. The “Petrine ministry” belongs to the true Pope, not to a manifest heretic who has usurped the papal office. And the “mission of the Church” as Prevost understands it — a mission of “justice and peace” defined in secular terms — is not the mission Christ gave to His Church, which is “to teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19).
The “Venerable” Gaudí and the Sagrada Familia: Sanctifying Modernist Architecture
The article reports that Prevost visited the crypt of the Sagrada Familia Basilica to pray before the “Blessed Sacrament” and light a candle at the tomb of Antoni Gaudí, whom “Pope Francis” declared to possess “heroic virtue” in April 2025. The article describes Gaudí as the “architect of God” who was known for his “intense personal faith and devotion to the building of the Sagrada Família.”
The elevation of Gaudí to the status of “Venerable” is a revealing conciliar operation. Gaudí was a Catalan architect whose work is inseparable from the modernist cultural movement of early 20th-century Catalonia. The Sagrada Familia itself, while visually stunning, is a product of the same cultural milieu that produced the theological and artistic modernism condemned by St. Pius X. Its organic, flowing forms — inspired by nature rather than by the classical and Gothic traditions of Catholic sacred architecture — represent a departure from the theological principles that governed Catholic church building for centuries. The traditional Catholic church is a house of sacrifice, oriented toward the altar, designed to draw the soul upward toward God in an atmosphere of reverence, silence, and awe. The Sagrada Familia, by contrast, is a monument to human creativity, a tourist attraction, a symbol of Catalan national identity — in short, a product of the very “cult of man” that the conciliar revolution has elevated to the status of Catholic worship.
Prevost’s celebration of “Mass” at the Sagrada Familia and his inauguration of the Tower of Jesus Christ — making it the tallest church in the world — is a perfect symbol of the conciliar inversion of Catholic values. The Catholic Church built the great cathedrals of Europe not to “stand out in worldly rankings” but to glorify God and facilitate the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Prevost himself acknowledged this in his homily — “not to stand out in worldly rankings but to guide the steps of God’s people” — but the very fact that the Sagrada Familia is the tallest church in the world, and that this fact is celebrated as a milestone, reveals the true spirit behind the project. It is a monument to human achievement, not to divine worship.
Moreover, the article’s description of the inauguration — “a stunning celebration of lights and sacred music” — reveals the conciliar preference for spectacle over substance. The true “sacred music” of the Catholic Church is Gregorian chant and polyphony, as prescribed by the Council of Trent and reaffirmed by every pope up to Pius XII. The “sacred music” of the conciliar sect is a debased imitation of popular culture, designed to entertain rather than to elevate the soul to God. The “celebration of lights” is a theatrical production, not a liturgical act. This is the conciliar “reform” in action: the replacement of the sacred with the spectacular, the supernatural with the natural, the eternal with the ephemeral.
The Migrant Cross and the Traffickers: Justice Without Christ the King
The final two “powerful moments” of Prevost’s trip — the blessing of a cross made from migrant boat wood at the Port of Arguineguín and his denunciation of human traffickers in Tenerife — are perhaps the most revealing of the conciliar sect’s fundamental orientation. Prevost declared: “For every life lost, every family deceived, every body subjugated, every woman threatened, every worker exploited, you will have to appear before divine justice,” and commanded traffickers: “Stop. Repent.”
The language of “divine justice” and “repentance” is employed here, but it is entirely detached from its Catholic theological context. Prevost does not call traffickers to conversion to the Catholic Faith, to sacramental confession, to the reception of the sacraments of the true Church. He calls them to a vague “repentance” that is indistinguishable from the secular concept of moral improvement. This is the conciar method: borrow the language of Catholicism while emptying it of its supernatural content.
Furthermore, the entire framing of the migration issue is conducted in the language of human rights and human dignity — concepts that, while not inherently opposed to Catholic teaching, are employed here in a way that systematically excludes the Catholic understanding of the common good. The Catholic Church teaches that the state has the duty to protect its citizens and to regulate immigration in accordance with the common good, which includes the preservation of the Catholic Faith and the moral order. Pius XI, in Quas Primas, stated 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.” A “harmonious association” requires a shared faith, a shared moral order, and a shared commitment to the common good as defined by Catholic teaching. The conciar approach to migration — unconditional welcome, “integration” defined as cultural coexistence rather than conversion — is a direct contradiction of this principle.
The blessing of the cross made from migrant boat wood is a powerful symbol — but of what? Not of the Catholic Faith, which teaches that the cross is the instrument of our salvation and that true hope lies not in this world but in the next. The cross of the conciliar sect is a memorial to human suffering, a symbol of solidarity with the victims of a broken world — but not a sign of the hope of eternal life. It is a cross without the Resurrection, a Christianity without Christ. This is the religion of the Antichrist: a simulacrum of Catholicism that retains the external forms while denying the substance.
The Viral Rosary: Sacramentals in the Hands of a Usurper
The article recounts with evident delight the story of young Sergi, who handed his rosary to Prevost, who then used it to pray before returning it. The article describes this as a “viral” moment — a piece of feel-good content designed to humanize the “pope” and demonstrate his accessibility.
But consider what has actually occurred. A sacramental — a rosary — has been handled and “prayed with” by a man who is, by the judgment of the Catholic Church, a manifest heretic who has usurped the papal office. The Defense of Sedevacantism file, drawing on Bellarmine, John of St. Thomas, and the 1917 Code of Canon Law (Canon 188.4), demonstrates that a manifest heretic ipso facto loses all jurisdiction and cannot exercise any act of the sacred ministry. Prevost’s “prayer” with Sergi’s rosary is not a Catholic act; it is a simulation of prayer performed by a man who has no authority to lead the faithful in prayer. The rosary is a sacramental of the Catholic Church, and its efficacy depends on the Church’s blessing and the faith of the person who prays it. When a manifest heretic handles a sacramental, he does not sanctify it; he profanes it.
The viral nature of the story is also significant. The conciar sect’s obsession with social media, “going viral,” and generating positive press coverage reveals its fundamental orientation: it is a media organization, not a religious institution. The true Church of Christ does not need viral moments to validate its mission. Its mission is the salvation of souls through the preaching of the Gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and the sanctification of the faithful — none of which requires the approval of the internet.
The Omission That Condemns: What Is Entirely Absent
The most damning aspect of this article is not what it says but what it omits. In ten “powerful moments” spanning an entire papal journey, there is:
– No mention of the Social Kingship of Christ — the central teaching of Pius XI’s Quas Primas, which demands that all nations publicly recognize the dominion of Christ the King.
– No call for the conversion of Spain to the Catholic Faith — the mission given by Christ to His Apostles and their successors.
– No condemnation of the conciliar errors — religious liberty, ecumenism, collegiality, the evolution of dogmas — all of which were condemned by the pre-conciliar Magisterium.
– No call for the restoration of the Traditional Latin Mass — the true and valid liturgy of the Catholic Church, which has been effectively suppressed by the conciliar sect.
– No mention of the sacraments as necessary for salvation — Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist — administered within the true Church by validly ordained priests with legitimate jurisdiction.
– No warning that the conciliar “Mass” is a Protestantized assembly — a simulacrum of the Holy Sacrifice that does not contain the true Body and Blood of Christ, as the theology of the propitiatory sacrifice has been systematically undermined.
– No acknowledgment that the conciliar sect is an apostate structure — that its “popes,” “bishops,” and “priests” have lost all jurisdiction by reason of manifest heresy, and that the faithful must seek the sacraments from true Catholic clergy.
– No mention of the Last Things — death, judgment, Heaven, Hell — the realities that should be at the center of every Catholic apostolate.
This systematic omission is not accidental; it is the defining characteristic of the conciliar revolution. The neo-church of the Antichrist is a counterfeit Church that retains the external forms of Catholicism while systematically denying its substance. It is, as the False Fatima Apparitions file argues, a “potential Masonic psychological operation against the Church” — a structure designed to divert attention from the true Faith, to legitimize dialogue with the enemies of Christ, and to prepare the world for the reign of the Antichrist.
Prevost’s Spanish journey is not a Catholic apostolate; it is a modernist spectacle — a carefully choreographed performance designed to project an image of relevance, compassion, and spiritual authority while systematically excluding the one thing necessary: the proclamation of the integral Catholic Faith and the call to true conversion through the sacraments of the true Church. The faithful must reject this abomination and return to the immutable Tradition of the Catholic Church — the only ark of salvation in a world hurtling toward damnation.
Source:
10 of the most powerful moments of Pope Leo XIV’s trip to Spain (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 13.06.2026