Vatican News portal reports on June 16, 2026, that the antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost) addressed journalists outside Castel Gandolfo, commenting on the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding, his recent trip to Spain, migration policy, and the Society of Saint Pius X’s planned episcopal consecrations. The tone is characteristically conciliar: diplomatic platitudes replace doctrinal clarity, naturalistic humanitarianism supplants supernatural truth, and veiled threats against those who defend Tradition expose the authoritarian heart of the post-conciliar sect.
The Antichurch Embraces Diplomacy Without Christ the King
The most immediate observation from Leo XIV’s remarks on the US-Iran memorandum is the complete absence of any reference to the social reign of Christ the King over nations. Pius XI, in his encyclical Quas Primas (1925), taught with unambiguous clarity that “the Kingdom of our Redeemer encompasses all men” and that “rulers of states therefore should not refuse public veneration and obedience to the reigning Christ.” The Pope — and here the title is used in its proper sense for Pius XI — explicitly stated that peace would only be possible when “all willingly accept the reign of Christ and obey Him.”
Leo XIV, by contrast, offers nothing but secular diplomacy: “thank God, there is at least this Memorandum,” he says, expressing hope that it “might be truly a solution to the war.” The language is indistinguishable from that of any secular statesman or United Nations bureaucrat. There is no call for the conversion of Iran to the Catholic Faith, no mention that there is “no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12), no insistence that true peace is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ. This is the religion of naturalism condemned by Pius IX in the Syllabus of Errors, Proposition 1: “There exists no Supreme, all-wise, all-provident Divine Being, distinct from the universe.”
The antipope’s call to “eliminate nuclear weapons” and “seek the good of all peoples” at the “economic and social level” is pure humanitarianism — the very “cult of man” that the pre-conciliar Church consistently condemned. Where is the recognition that war and conflict are consequences of sin and defection from God? Where is the call to repentance? The omission is deafening and deliberate.
Spain Trip: The Triumph of Organized Enthusiasm Over Supernatural Faith
Regarding his visit to Spain, Leo XIV praised “the enthusiastic response of so many people” and declared that “the people were very happy.” He credited “the bishops, with so many laypeople, so many volunteers” for the preparation. This is the language of event management, not of the Church Militant. The question that must be asked: What was actually preached? Was the integral Catholic Faith proclaimed, including the necessity of baptism, the reality of hell, the obligation of Sunday Mass, the social kingship of Christ? Or was it the usual conciliar fare of dialogue, inclusion, and feel-good naturalism?
The antipope’s refusal to “interfere in Spanish politics” is itself a political act — a tacit endorsement of the secular order that has stripped Spain of its Catholic identity. A true Pope would remind the Spanish state of its duty to publicly honor Christ the King, not retreat behind a wall of false neutrality. As Pius XI declared: “Not only private individuals, but also rulers and governments have the duty to publicly honor Christ and obey Him.”
His exhortation to “dialogue” and “listen to each other” and “not always criticize and insult one’s opposition” is the language of the post-conciliar revolution — the very spirit of Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae and Nostra Aetate that Pius IX would have condemned as Proposition 79 of the Syllabus: “The civil liberty of every form of worship… [does not] conduce more easily to corrupt the morals and minds of the people.”
Migration: Naturalistic Humanitarianism Masquerading as Christian Charity
On the question of migration and the so-called “remigration” debate, Leo XIV once again reveals the conciliar sect’s substitution of naturalistic humanitarianism for Catholic moral teaching. He calls for “respect for the person” and criticizes those who would “send them away” to “wash our hands of the problem.” He speaks of “violence, war, conflicts” as reasons people leave their countries.
What is conspicuously absent is any reference to the Catholic Church’s teaching on the duty of the state to protect its own people, the distinction between lawful immigration and unlawful invasion, the right of a nation to preserve its cultural and religious identity, and — most critically — the supernatural obligation to evangelize migrants in the Catholic Faith rather than merely accommodate them in their errors. The antipope treats migration as a purely socioeconomic problem to be managed with “respect for the person,” reducing Christian charity to a secular human rights framework.
Pius XI taught in Quas Primas that the state’s duty is ordered toward the “common good” understood in light of “God’s commandments and Christian principles.” A Catholic approach to migration would begin with the question: Does this policy serve the salvation of souls and the glory of God? Leo XIV does not even ask the question.
SSPX: The Antipope Threatens Those Who Defend the Faith
The most revealing exchange concerns the Society of Saint Pius X and its planned episcopal consecrations on July 1. Leo XIV states: “We are still considering making another appeal, to say ‘do not do this, let us try to live in communion in the Church.'” He adds: “If they make that choice, I am sorry, but we must move forward.”
Let us be precise about what is happening here. The SSPX — whatever its own internal contradictions and ambiguities — is being threatened with schism for the “crime” of defending the Traditional Latin Mass and the unchanging Catholic Faith against the innovations of Vatican II. The antipope explicitly states the reason: “they refuse to accept certain fundamental elements of the Church, starting with various points of the Second Vatican Council.”
Here is the crux: The SSPX is being condemned not for rejecting Catholic doctrine, but for rejecting the novelties of Vatican II — novelties that the pre-conciliar Church had already condemned as heresy. The “fundamental elements” that the SSPX allegedly rejects are precisely those teachings that Pius X condemned in Lamentabili and Pascendi, that Pius IX condemned in the Syllabus of Errors, and that the Council of Trent defined against the Protestants.
Consider the following condemned propositions that Vatican II effectively adopted:
– Religious liberty (condemned by Pius IX, Syllabus, Props. 15, 77-79)
– Ecumenism and the idea that non-Catholic religions can be paths to salvation (condemned by Pius IX, Props. 16-18)
– The democratization of the Church and the “People of God” concept (condemned by Pius X, Lamentabili, Props. 6, 52-54)
– The evolution of dogma and the adaptation of doctrine to modern times (condemned by Pius X, Props. 58-65)
When Leo XIV says “let us try to live in communion in the Church,” he means communion with the conciliar sect — the very structure that has emptied the churches, destroyed the Faith, and led countless souls to perdition. The true Church — the Catholic Church — is not in communion with the post-conciliar apostasy. As St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, a manifest heretic ceases to be Pope and head ipso facto. The SSPX’s refusal to accept Vatican II is not schism; it is fidelity.
It must also be noted that the SSPX’s own position is deeply problematic. Archbishop Lefebvre himself acknowledged the legitimacy of the conciliar antipopes, stating “give us the old Mass, that is enough for us.” This is a catastrophic error. One cannot simultaneously recognize that a heretic occupies the See of Peter and demand concessions from him. The SSSPXSX occupies an unstable middle ground — a schism within a schism — and its episcopal consecrations, while potentially valid due to valid Orders, are undertaken by men who have not fully embraced the sedevacantist position that Catholic theology demands.
The Linguistic Register: Bureaucratic Banality as Apostasy
Throughout the exchange, the linguistic register is revealing. The antipope speaks in short, vague, non-committal phrases: “thank God, there is at least this Memorandum,” “it is always better to do so through dialogue,” “we must truly respect people,” “let’s hope so!” This is not the language of the Vicar of Christ — it is the language of a mid-level United Nations official. There is no doctrinal depth, no supernatural vision, no prophetic fire.
Compare this with the language of Pius IX, who declared in the Syllabus: “The Roman Pontiff can, and ought to, reconcile himself, and come to terms with progress, liberalism and modern civilization” — and condemned this proposition as error. Leo XIV is the embodiment of this condemned proposition. He has reconciled himself entirely with the modern world, and his every utterance confirms it.
Conclusion: The Abomination of Desolation Speaks
Every element of this press encounter confirms the diagnosis: the structures occupying the Vatican are not the Catholic Church. They are a paramasonic structure dedicated to the destruction of the Faith and the construction of a naturalistic, humanitarian pseudo-religion that serves the agenda of the enemies of Christ.
The US-Iran memorandum is welcomed without any reference to the social kingship of Christ. The Spain trip is evaluated in terms of crowd enthusiasm rather than doctrinal fidelity. Migration is reduced to a humanitarian management problem. And those who defend the Faith — the SSPX — are threatened with schism for the crime of rejecting Vatican II.
The faithful must recognize that the true Church endures — not in the conciliar structures, but among those who profess the integral Catholic Faith, celebrate the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass according to the ancient rite, and refuse to bow before the idols of modernism, ecumenism, and religious liberty. As St. Pius X warned in Pascendi: “The progress of novelty in the investigation of the foundations of things leads in our times to deplorable consequences.” The antipope Leo XIV is the living embodiment of those deplorable consequences.
Source:
Pope: May US-Iran memorandum be "truly a solution to the war" (vaticannews.va)
Date: 16.06.2026