Pillar Catholic portal reports on the “extraordinary consistory” convened by the antipope Leo XIV (Robert Prevost), analyzing how his choices for these meetings reveal his intended style of governance over the conciliar sect. The article details the format of the two-day gathering, which includes small group discussions on broad themes like “international affairs” and “evangelization,” culminating in an open “dialogue” between the cardinals and the antipope. The author contrasts this with the approach of his predecessor, Francis, noting that while Francis dispensed with extraordinary consistories almost entirely, favoring a small hand-picked council of advisors (the C9), Leo XIV appears to prefer engaging the entire College of Cardinals. The article frames this as a shift toward “collegiality,” suggesting the antipope is interested in “hearing whatever wants to be said” and “gauging actual consensus” among the global hierarchy. This supposed openness, however, merely masks the continuation of the post-conciliar revolution, replacing one mechanism of modernist control with another more palatable to those yearning for the pre-1958 order.
The Illusion of Consultation in a Paramasonic Structure
The article presents the resumption of “extraordinary consistories” under Leo XIV as a significant departure from the Francis era, a move toward greater “collegiality” within the post-conciliar hierarchy. We are told that unlike his predecessor, who relied on a small, insulated group of advisors (the C9), the current antipope prefers to engage the entire College of Cardinals, allowing them to meet, discuss, and provide feedback on broad themes. This is framed as a restoration of sorts, a return to “more established mechanisms of curial governance.” Yet, this entire spectacle unfolds within the structures of the conciliar sect — the very “abomination of desolation” that has systematically dismantled the integral Catholic faith since 1958. The “College of Cardinals” assembled is not the guardian of Tradition but the electoral body of an antipope, composed largely of men appointed by his heretical predecessors, men who have sworn allegiance to the novus ordo and its errors.
The very concept of “collegiality” as practiced here is a modernist distortion. In the true Church, the Pope governs with the counsel of the bishops as successors of the Apostles, but he does not require their consensus to define doctrine or govern the universal Church. As Pius XI taught in *Quas Primas*, Christ’s reign extends over all men and all societies, and the Church, as a perfect society, demands full freedom and independence from secular authority. The modernist notion of “collegiality” — where the Pope acts as a moderator seeking consensus among a global committee — is a direct repudiation of the papal primacy defined at Vatican I. It transforms the Vicar of Christ into a chairman of a board, seeking “feedback” on “themes” rather than ruling with the authority of Peter. The “open dialogue” described in the article, where cardinals can “raise whatever issues they want,” is not a restoration of authentic governance but a theatrical exercise in managed dissent, designed to give the illusion of participation while the fundamental errors of the conciliar revolution remain untouched.
Agenda of Omissions: The Silence on Apostasy
A critical analysis of the consistory’s agenda, as presented in the article, reveals what is conspicuously absent. The discussions are themed around “international affairs,” “evangelization,” and sections of Leo XIV’s encyclical *Magnifica humanitas*. We are told that cardinals will discuss “sufferings, tensions and questions” affecting their people, “signs of hope,” and “tensions, divisions and conflicts” in the world. Yet, as the article itself notes, there is no mention of the liturgy — the very heart of Catholic worship — nor any discussion of the “just war theory,” which the antipope’s own encyclical declared “outdated.” Most gravely, there is no mention of the primary duty of the Church: the salvation of souls through the preaching of the integral Catholic faith, the administration of the true sacraments, and the defense of the Social Reign of Christ the King.
This silence is not accidental; it is symptomatic of the modernist mentality that pervades the conciliar structures. Pius IX, in the *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 entire agenda of this consistory is a practical application of this condemned error. The focus on “building up the common good” and addressing “global conflict” without reference to the supernatural order, without the primacy of the Catholic Church as the one true religion, is pure naturalism — the very error Pius IX condemned in Proposition 40: “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society.” By omitting the most fundamental issues — the state of the true Mass, the crisis of faith within the conciliar structures, the apostasy of the hierarchy — the antipope and his court reveal their true priorities: managing a human institution rather than governing the Mystical Body of Christ.
The “Small Group” Model and the Democratization of the Church
The article describes the format of the consistory as involving “small group discussions” with “broadly drawn” topics, where feedback is collected via email and summaries are presented in the hall. This bureaucratic, corporate-style meeting is a far cry from the solemn councils of the true Church, where bishops gathered under the authority of the Pope to define doctrine, condemn heresy, and legislate for the universal Church. The modernist preference for “small group discussions” and “feedback” is a hallmark of the democratization of the Church — the error condemned by St. Pius X in *Lamentabili sane exitu*, where he rejected the 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).
This format serves a dual purpose. First, it allows the antipope to “gauge consensus” without committing to any definitive action, maintaining the appearance of consultation while retaining absolute control. Second, it fosters the illusion that the “College of Cardinals” has a meaningful role in governing the Church, when in reality, the entire structure is a human construct designed to perpetuate the conciliar revolution. The true Church does not require “feedback sessions” to determine the truth; the truth is deposited in the Magisterium and guarded by the Holy Ghost. As Bellarmine taught, the Pope receives his authority directly from Christ, not from the consensus of cardinals. The modernist obsession with “hearing from the whole body” is a rejection of the divine constitution of the Church in favor of a parliamentary model suited to a human institution.
The Looming Schism and the Failure of Authority
The article briefly mentions the “looming threat of a schism by the leadership of the Society of St. Pius X,” noting that their “illicit episcopal consecrations” are set to take place in early July. This reference is telling. The FSSPX, while preserving the outward form of the Traditional Latin Mass, remains in a state of schism within the conciliar sect, as they continue to recognize the legitimacy of the antipopes and the novus ordo. Their “illicit consecrations” are a symptom of the crisis of authority within the post-church, but they are not a solution. As the files on the FSSPX make clear, Archbishop Lefebvre himself acknowledged the validity of the usurpers, and his society practices contradictions and theological errors that align it with the neo-church of the Antichrist.
The antipope’s failure to address this “schism” directly — or indeed, any of the fundamental crises facing the conciliar structures — reveals the impotence of the modernist papacy. A true Pope, faced with such a crisis, would act with the fullness of his authority to defend the faith, condemn error, and restore order. Leo XIV, by contrast, prefers “open dialogue” and “broad themes,” revealing himself as a manager of decline rather than a successor of Peter. His “style of governance” is not a return to tradition but a refinement of the modernist project, making the structures of apostasy more palatable to those who yearn for the outward forms of Catholic order while remaining blind to the spiritual ruin that surrounds them.
The Social Reign of Christ: The Forgotten Foundation
Perhaps the most damning omission in the entire consistory agenda is any reference to the Social Reign of Christ the King. Pius XI, in *Quas Primas*, declared that “the hope of lasting peace will not yet shine upon nations as long as individuals and states renounce and do not wish to recognize the reign of our Savior.” He taught that Christ’s authority extends over all men, all families, and all states, and that rulers have a duty to “publicly honor Christ and obey Him.” The antipope’s focus on “international affairs” and “building up the common good” without reference to this fundamental truth is a direct repudiation of Pius XI’s teaching. It reduces the Church’s mission to naturalistic humanism — the very error condemned in the *Syllabus of Errors* (Proposition 58): “No other forces are to be recognized except those which reside in matter, and all the rectitude and excellence of morality ought to be placed in the accumulation and increase of riches by every possible means, and the gratification of pleasure.”
The true peace that the world seeks — and that the antipope claims to pursue through his “dialogue” — is only possible in the Kingdom of Christ. As Pius XI wrote: “Oh, what happiness we would enjoy if individuals, families, and states allowed themselves to be governed by Christ.” The consistory’s agenda, with its focus on worldly concerns and its silence on the supernatural order, is a practical denial of this truth. It is the agenda of a church that has lost its divine mission and replaced it with the agenda of the United Nations.
Conclusion: The Theater of the Antichurch
The “extraordinary consistory” convened by Leo XIV is not a restoration of authentic Catholic governance but a theatrical performance designed to give the illusion of order and continuity within the conciliar sect. The antipope’s preference for “open dialogue” and “broad themes” over definitive action is not a sign of humility or collegiality but of weakness and indecision — the hallmarks of a modernist papacy that has abandoned its divine mandate to “teach all nations” and instead seeks to manage a declining human institution. The absence of any reference to the true Mass, the Social Reign of Christ, or the crisis of faith within the conciliar structures reveals the true nature of this gathering: it is the theater of the antichurch, performing for an audience that has forgotten what the true Church looks like.
The faithful who cling to the integral Catholic faith must see through this spectacle and recognize it for what it is: a refinement of the modernist project, not a repudiation of it. The conciliar sect, in all its forms — whether under Francis, Leo XIV, or any future antipope — remains the “synagogue of Satan” that Pius IX warned against, a “paramasonic structure” that has systematically dismantled the faith and replaced it with the worship of man. The true Church endures, not in the halls of the Vatican, but in the hearts of the faithful who profess the immutable Tradition and await the restoration of all things in Christ the King.
Source:
What Pope Leo’s consistories tell us about his style of governance (pillarcatholic.com)
Date: 22.06.2026