One Year of ‘Pope’ Leo XIV: An Unpopular Reality Check

Inconvenient facts meet wishful thinking…

One Year of ‘Pope’ Leo XIV:
An Unpopular Reality Check

It was May 8, 2025, when all eyes were on the smoke stack atop the roof of the Sistine Chapel in Vatican City. Only approximately 24 hours had passed since the start of the conclave when white smoke began pouring out of the chimney, signaling to the world that a successor to ‘Pope’ Francis (Jorge Bergoglio) had been elected.

And so it was. Within about an hour, the Augustinian Rev. Robert F. Prevost of Chicago, United States, presented himself on the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica as the new ‘Pope’, as the head, that is, of the Vatican II Church. ‘Cardinal’ Prevost, as he had been known up until that point, had enjoyed a meteoric rise under Francis, and was now to be called by his chosen name of Leo XIV.

Commentators were going wild. Cardinal who? What would his election mean? What do we know about him? Would he be just like Francis or try to reverse course? The beautiful vestments he was wearing marked a visually striking departure from his Argentinian predecessor’s ostentatious ‘humility’.

In one of the more amusing episodes of ‘Catholic’ internet punditry, Taylor Marshall‘s immediate reaction, broadcast live, was one of shock and disbelief, as he had identified Prevost a few days earlier on his podcast program as the worst possible pick for ‘Pope’ (among those with a realistic chance of getting elected). A day later, Marshall deleted the recording of his live reaction and also the podcast program episode with his objections to Prevost. Henceforth he was going to have a positive, hopeful attitude with regard to Leo XIV, he told his audience, assuring them that praying the Rosary after Leo’s election is what gave him this change of heart.

Fast-forward to today. It’s been just over a year now since the conclave ended, and we have no need to rely on prognostications. We can simply look back at 365 days of Prevost as ‘Pope Leo’ and assess his ‘pontificate’ quite objectively using the timeless Roman Catholic Faith as the standard.

What we find, in a nutshell, is two-fold.

First, we find that Leo XIV is very different from his boorish predecessor in terms of character and comportment. Unlike Francis, Prevost seems to have a serene and pleasant personality, appears to value beauty, and carries himself with a certain dignity and solemnity. However striking this external difference may be, it is ultimately of small importance.

Second, we find that there is no significant difference between Prevost and Bergoglio in terms of doctrine and ideological convictions. What this means, in effect, is that although Leo XIV may at times give the external appearance of a real Catholic and draw people simply with the “aura” of his persona (as some on Twitter have commented), the totality of his words and actions reveal that he is as much of a counterfeit Catholic as his predecessor from Buenos Aires. A 1982 graduate from Chicago’s notorious Catholic Theological Union and ordained a Novus Ordo priest the same year, Prevost is thoroughly imbued with post-conciliar theology, and it shows.

Our topical page on Leo XIV, which we have reorganized and massively updated recently, gives an overview of Bob Prevost’s background, beliefs, and actions.

Rorate Caeli and the Battle for Narrative Control: How ‘orthodox’ is Leo XIV?

On May 8, 2026, the popular semi-traditionalist Rorate Caeli blog published a fairly long article by Dutch Vaticanist Serre Verweij (pictured left) on Leo’s first year in office: “How Can We View the First Year of the Pontificate of Leo XIV?”

Although one might forgive Rorate Caeli for not (yet) blasting their new ‘Pope’ the way they eventually did Francis, however deserving of it he would already be, nevertheless what they just did publish is a rather tendentious piece painting Prevost in mostly positive terms, to the point of suggesting that he possibly represents “a return to orthodoxy”!

In the remainder of the present post, we will provide select excerpts from Verweij’s monograph and intersperse a refreshingly sober reality check on what can only be called a dangerously delusional assessment of Prevost’s first year as ‘Pope’. This is not meant to be a personal attack on the author, who is a freelance contributor and, considering his youthful appearance, may not have the experience of prior generations that would prevent him from reading certain developments in an overly optimistic light.

So let’s begin.

In the first excerpt we wish to highlight, Verweij relates that

…a minority of commentators early on — including me — suspected Pope Leo was actually a return to orthodoxy (along the lines of John Paul II), and that he had quietly been the conservative candidate all along. In recent months, that view has gained real traction. Pope Leo has openly made conciliatory moves toward supporters of the Tridentine Mass, his curial appointments keep piling up and virtually all lean conservative, and he has even praised Catholicism being the state religion of Monaco. Is a full picture of this Pope finally emerging — and what does it mean for the future?

The author’s clarification that he identifies doctrinal orthodoxy with the magisterium of John Paul II, speaks volumes.

First, we must keep in mind that orthodoxy means right belief, that is, loyal adherence to the truths of the Catholic Faith. But the Faith is an organic whole and cannot be had in elements or parts:

Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected.

(Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Ad Beatissimi, n. 24)

There can be nothing more dangerous than those heretics who admit nearly the whole cycle of doctrine, and yet by one word, as with a drop of poison, infect the real and simple faith taught by our Lord and handed down by Apostolic tradition.

(Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Satis Cognitum, n. 9; quoting author of tract against Arians.)

…[D]iabolical error, when it has artfully colored its lies, easily clothes itself in the likeness of truth while very brief additions or changes corrupt the meaning of expressions; and confession, which usually works salvation, sometimes, with a slight change, inches toward death.

(Pope Clement XIII, Encyclical In Dominico Agro, n. 2)

Thus, one can either be orthodox or not orthodox (i.e. heterodox). Was the body of doctrine taught magisterially by ‘Pope’ John Paul II orthodox? It will not do to say that it was orthodox on some or even many things, since, as we just saw, there is no such thing as partial orthodoxy. Nor can we say that a man is ‘mostly’ orthodox if he willfully deviates from the Faith even in just one point. Then he is not orthodox at all.

While Verweij may personally believe that John Paul II was orthodox, or that his magisterium did not deviate from the Faith, it has long been the editorial position of Rorate Caeli that the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium contain, reflect, or facilitate serious errors against the Faith that endanger the salvation of souls (regardless of whether these errors technically rise to the level of heresy or not).

Beginning in 2021, Rorate published the series The Council and the Eclipse of God by Don Pietro Leone. In the first installment, the translator, Francesca Romana, noted that Vatican II was “a diabolical attack on Holy Mother Church Herself and one of the greatest evils of the 20th century”; and the author himself referred to the “heterodox texts” of the council and stated openly: “The Council endangers the salvation of souls and should be set aside.” So why is Rorate now longing for a “return to orthodoxy (along the lines of John Paul II)”? Just as orthodoxy cannot be had in elements, parts, or degrees, neither can it be had in steps.

Leo XIV on the Traditional Latin Mass and the State Religion of Monaco

Verweij writes that “Pope Leo has openly made conciliatory moves toward supporters of the Tridentine Mass, his curial appointments keep piling up and virtually all lean conservative, and he has even praised Catholicism being the state religion of Monaco.”

Even if it can be granted that Leo has made some conciliatory moves towards TLM supporters, they have been baby steps at best. Regardless, they must be evaluated also against other things Leo has said or done that are not so conciliatory. For example, whereas Francis was extremely conciliatory toward the Society of St. Pius (SSPX/Lefebvrists), Leo has shown himself rather cold; and while Leo once had the subject of liturgy on the agenda to be discussed with his cardinals in consistory, the topic ended up getting set aside for the time being.

In his 2025 interview with Elise Ann Allen, Prevost’s answer regarding the TLM deservedly raised some eyebrows:

There is another issue, which is also another hot-button issue, which I have already received a number of requests and letters [about]: The question about, people always say ‘the Latin Mass.’ Well, you can say Mass in Latin right now. If it’s the Vatican II rite there’s no problem. Obviously, between the Tridentine Mass and the Vatican II Mass, the Mass of Paul VI, I’m not sure where that’s going to go. It’s obviously very complicated.

I do know that part of that issue, unfortunately, has become – again, part of a process of polarization – people have used the liturgy as an excuse for advancing other topics. It’s become a political tool, and that’s very unfortunate. I think sometimes the, say, ‘abuse’ of the liturgy from what we call the Vatican II Mass, was not helpful for people who were looking for a deeper experience of prayer, of contact with the mystery of faith that they seemed to find in the celebration of the Tridentine Mass. Again, we’ve become polarized, so that instead of being able to say, well, if we celebrate the Vatican II liturgy in a proper way, do you really find that much difference between this experience and that experience?

I have not had the chance to really sit down with a group of people who are advocating for the Tridentine rite. There’s an opportunity coming up soon, and I’m sure there will be occasions for that. But that is an issue that I think also, maybe with synodality, we have to sit down and talk about. It’s become the kind of issue that’s so polarized that people aren’t willing to listen to one another, oftentimes. I’ve heard bishops talk to me, they’ve talked to me about that, where they say, ‘we invited them to this and that and they just won’t even hear it’. They don’t even want to talk about it. That’s a problem in itself. It means we’re into ideology now, we’re no longer into the experience of church communion. That’s one of the issues on the agenda.

(Leo XIV to Elise Ann Allen, in “Pope Leo speaks to Crux’s Elise Ann Allen about LGBTQ+ issues and the liturgy”, Crux, Sep. 18, 2025)

Another instance that was hailed by some as a great conciliatory gesture in favor of TLM supporters was Leo’s wish for the French Novus Ordo bishops, relayed via ‘Cardinal’ Pietro Parolin, namely: “May the Holy Spirit inspire you with practical solutions that generously include those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo [TLM], in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council regarding the Liturgy.” Of course one can read all kinds of things into this expressed desire, but one does not have to. At the end of the day, it is deliberately vague and a mere wish, not a directive, to boot.

Similarly, to say that Leo XIV has “praised Catholicism being the state religion of Monaco” is an interpretation of his words at best. In actual fact, he did not utter any laudatory remark at all, he merely observed that Catholicism was Monaco’s state religion: “You are among the few countries in the world to have the Catholic faith as a state religion”, Prevost said to Prince Albert II on March 28, 2026. How is that ‘papal’ praise for their constitutional setup? He could have easily signaled his approval by saying they are blessed to have Catholicism as the state religion, yet he didn’t even do that much.

Reading Leo’s remarks in context doesn’t help, either, for he immediately went on to talk about how this Catholic Faith directs us to worry about things like all-inclusive “fraternity” and “integral ecology”. Clearly, the ‘Pope’ was using the Catholicism-as-state-religion remark merely as a lead-in to speak about what he actually cares about, namely, social and environmental issues. But regardless, what are we supposed to think here? That Prevost is secretly anti-Vatican II and in reality favors the Catholic confessional state? Let’s not be silly!

Comparing and Contrasting Leo XIV and Francis

Verweij continues:

Pope Leo gradually started to become less of a blank slate throughout his first year. He has not had his “who am I to judge” moment, however. Unlike Francis, the things Pope Leo says do not dominate headlines. He speaks less off the cuff and largely avoided interviews during his first few months. It quickly became evident to many that he is reserved — the exact opposite of Francis. He does not define himself through provocative statements or symbolic gestures.

It is true that Leo XIV does not appear to seek the limelight at every opportunity with conspicuous gestures or provocative statements, unlike his South American predecessor. However, Leo has introduced a controversial practice that even Francis shied away from: Leo will spontaneously take questions from journalists, typically once a week when leaving Castel Gandolfo on Tuesdays after his day of rest. And what he says there has dominated headlines on occasion. One of his more memorable off-the-cuff answers was his abysmal reaction to ‘Cardinal’ Blase Cupich’s plan to honor the American pro-abortion and pro-LGBT senator Dick Durbin (D-MI) with a “lifetime achievement” award.

Verweij also states that Leo “expresses himself through measured statements and carefully considered actions. As a result, there has been far less need for clarifications or denials from the Vatican about what the Pope allegedly said or did.”

Compared to Francis, that is certainly true; however, Leo does also very much speak with needless ambiguity. This he did, for instance, during last Sunday’s Regina Caeli address, in which he noted that at the Last Supper, Christ “turn[ed] the bread and wine into a living expression of his love” and left it at that. What does that mean? We are not told, but both those who do and those who don’t believe in the dogma of Transubstantiation will find in that statement a confirmation of their respective positions.

That is the insidious Neo-Modernist way of instilling heresy in souls: They use vague, nebulous, ambiguous language where clarity would not only easily be possible and of great advantage but in fact required. In this way, a heretical understanding of the words is facilitated, all the while a modicum of plausible deniability is retained. Thus, Leo XIV uses the very tactic that was condemned by Pope Pius VI in his 1794 Apostolic Constitution Auctorem Fidei against the innovators of his day.

Verweij also speaks of “Pope Leo’s firmer and more consistent stance in opposing the heresies pushed by the German Synodal Way, from the very start of his pontificate.” This too is somewhat puzzling. To the knowledge of the present writer, Leo XIV has not given the slightest indication that heresy, as such, is a big concern for him, nor that he wants the German ‘Catholic Church’ purged of it. (Looking for heresy in the German church would be like inspecting Burger King for evidence of French fries. ‘Abp.’ Robert Zollitsch, for starters, has publicly denied that Christ died to atone for our sins!)

Regarding the question of the blessing of same-sex ‘couples’, Leo XIV has essentially confirmed his predecessor’s Fiducia Supplicans document, and has said that we ought not “go beyond that today” (emphasis added) — clearly leaving a back door open for future ‘developments’.

If it is true, as Verweij relates, “that Pope Leo’s intervention on abortion apparently killed a secret, unofficial agreement that the government of Andorra had been working to secure under Francis — one under which the Catholic Church would tacitly go along with the decriminalization, but not the legalization, of abortion”, then that is obviously very laudable. It does not, however, cancel out his public heresies, blasphemies, or other offenses against Faith and morals that he continually perpetrates.

September 30, 2023: Antipope Francis makes Robert Prevost a ‘cardinal’
(image: Shutterstock/Riccardo De Luca – Update)

Will the Real Leo XIV Please Stand Up?

The main problem with Verweij’s article is that it is mostly one-sided. It presents a positive view of Leo XIV by highlighting certain things he has said and done that are or sound orthodox/conservative/traditional, yet it ignores or downplays so much evidence that runs contrary to it.

To be clear: Yes, the author does concede a few times in his monograph that not everything Leo has done has been wonderful and that there are a few instances where his words or actions go contrary to the proposed narrative of the emerging conservative Pope. Examples given include his approval of the document Mater Populi Fidelis, which discourages the use of the Marian titles ‘Co-Redemptrix’ and ‘Mediatrix of All Graces’. Verweij also deplores the “overly generous ecumenical gestures toward Protestant non-clergy”, specifically Sarah Mullally, as well as the “continued focus on interreligious dialogue”. Although dialogue with non-Christians continues, “at least they are no longer called paths to God”, he asserts.

But while some of these things are mentioned by Verweij, he does not appear to allow them to spoil his narrative. In fact, a number of people in the recognize-and-resist and conservative Novus Ordo camps seem to think that heresy in one matter can be offset by orthodoxy in another, so that as long as there is more orthodoxy to be found than heresy, then things are looking up. But that is not how Catholicism works!

Either way, it is time we looked at some of what Bob Prevost did and said in his first year as Leo XIV that has been largely ignored or not given enough attention by those who are intent on seeing in him a conservative who is on a mission to bring back “orthodoxy”:

All of these items should put any talk of a “return to orthodoxy” under Leo XIV to rest. People who cling to it regardless are begging to be deceived (cf. Mk 13:5; 2 Thess 2:3).

Returning now to Verweij’s article, the author mentions a few seemingly conservative items from Prevost’s time in Peru and concludes:

Prevost’s ecclesial career revealed an anti-communist, an orthodox canon lawyer, and a devoted evangelizer. His past is free of the dubious ties or questionable decisions that marked Bergoglio’s. It instead showed a man deeply shaped by the pontificate of John Paul II, sympathetic to Latin American conservatism — and possibly integralism — rather than liberation theology. A man who was not significantly influenced or changed by the radicalism that dominated the Francis years.

Unfortunately, the author has entirely glossed over the evidence that has recently come to light, namely, that then-Fr. Robert Prevost participated in a sacrificial offering to Pachamama at an Augustinian symposium on ‘eco-theology’ in Brazil in 1995. This, too, is part of his background, and while this particular sin may have remained a singular act of which he perhaps subsequently repented, the underlying ‘eco-theology’ — which is basically an application of Marxist liberation theology to environmental issues — has undoubtedly shaped his theological mind.

As far as Prevost being an “anti-communist”, the Lepanto Institute just released a report showing that in October 2025, Leo XIV assured a gathering of Marxist revolutionaries in Rome of his support:

Article: Pope Leo to October Meeting of Marxist Revolutionaries: “I am here. I am with you.”
Video: Vatican Honors Gathering of Communist Revolutionists
Complete Report with Detailed Documentation: Walking Together with Revolutionaries: Pope Leo’s October 2025 Meeting with Marxist Popular Movements (PDF)

Given all of the foregoing, we must disagree at least to a notable extent with Verweij’s assessment when states:

Pope Leo does not make blunt, off-the-cuff remarks. He does not pull media stunts. He clarifies misunderstandings when necessary. Crucially, he also does not say things semi-privately while maintaining plausible deniability. While willing to meet with various figures, he does not sit down for detailed interviews with far-left, anti-Catholic atheists. All of this is a breath of fresh air.

But the truth is that Leo has made blunt, off-the-cuff remarks, although not nearly as many as Francis, of course. As for media stunts, at least his idiotic blessing of an ice block from a Greenland glacier can be counted as such. He does not clarify misunderstandings when necessary but when it suits him, and in matters of doctrine he introduces or sustains misunderstandings needlessly. It may be true that he does not say things semi-privately, but maintaining plausible deniability for his heresies, blasphemies, and other errors is definitely part of his modus operandi. Lastly, he may not have sat down with far-left atheists for a chat, but then, he’s only been on the job for a year, and certainly there is for him no doctrinal reason why he shouldn’t.

Furthermore, Verweij claims: “The Pope consistently champions natural law as foundational to ethics as well as law and politics. The situation ethics and consequentialism of Francis and Fernandez have been retired.”

Really? Exactly how does Prevost’s rejection of capital punishment fit into this assessment? And how is it that he spoke in entirely glowing terms to the movers and shakers of the “World of Cinema” (actors, directors, and similar Hollywood personalities), who are responsible for polluting the souls and minds of children and adults with unending streams of filthy ‘entertainment’?

As for situation ethics, Francis’ Amoris Laetitia is still on the books. As long as Leo XIV does not rescind it, any talk of situation ethics having been “retired” under Leo is premature, to say the least.

Verweij’s evaluation of Leo’s position on the Traditional Latin Mass is also excessively optimistic. He points out that according to remarks made by the nuncio to Great Britain to the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Leo has directed the Vatican Dicastery for Divine Worship to be generous in granting requested two-year exemptions from Francis’ anti-TLM decree Traditionis Custodes. Verweij takes this as evidence that the days of the decree are numbered, but here he discounts the fact that the same nuncio also pointed out that the ‘Pope’ is not planning on rescinding Francis’ decree.

“Whether Pope Leo represents a full return to orthodoxy will gradually become clear over the next few years”, Verweij writes in his conclusion. But we must disagree: It will not become clear in the next few years; rather, it is already abundantly clear that the answer is no, Leo does not represent a return to orthodoxy, neither full nor ‘partial’ (as it were). If anything, he is simply giving everyone that’s boarded his Great Apostasy train a bit of a smoother, less unpleasant ride.

Conclusion: Seen It All Before

We will conclude by noting that all this hopeful cheering for Leo as the great restorer of sanity and orthodoxy is very reminiscent of the misplaced optimism shown by not a few traditionalists in the early days of John Paul II’s pseudo-pontificate, which ran from 1978 until 2005, as well as with the manufactured “restoration of Tradition” which Benedict XVI was supposedly working to pull off.

In 1982, for example, Fr. Paul Wickens (1930-2004) wrote:

Why are we providentially blessed with Pope John Paul II? Besides possessing, as Surrogate of Christ, the unique guidance of the Holy Spirit, we have other reasons to be thankful….

(Paul A. Wickens, Christ Denied: Origin of the Present Day Problems in the Catholic Church [Rockford, IL: TAN Books, 1982], p. 36 in epub version.)

Fr. Wickens went on to list two specific reasons for his gratitude: (a) John Paul II had been a student of the staunch anti-Modernist Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange; and (b) in his first encyclical letter, Redemptor Hominis (1979), he “insisted upon the real [historical] existence of Adam” (p. 36).

These two points may have seemed like legitimate reasons to be hopeful to a lot of good-willed people back then, but of course we now know with hindsight — if we didn’t know it then just from plain common sense — that merely having an orthodox teacher is no guarantee for one’s personal orthodoxy decades later.

Furthermore, although Redemptor Hominis may teach that Adam had real personal existence as the first human being, that is a small consolation, for it also contains bold heresy and blasphemy, including a call for…

…coming closer together with the representatives of the non-Christian religions, an activity expressed through dialogue, contacts, prayer in common, investigation of the treasures of human spirituality, in which, as we know well, the members of these religions also are not lacking. Does it not sometimes happen that the firm belief of the followers of the non-Christian religions — a belief that is also an effect of the Spirit of truth operating outside the visible confines of the Mystical Body — can make Christians ashamed at being often themselves so disposed to doubt concerning the truths revealed by God and proclaimed by the Church and so prone to relax moral principles and open the way to ethical permissiveness.

(Antipope John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor Hominis, n. 6)

What frightfully wicked words! No affirmation of Adam as a real person can cancel out such rotten blasphemy and false teaching!

By the way: In the 1990s, the recognize-and-resist diocesan priest Fr. Johannes Dörmann (1922-2009) wrote a multi-installment work critiquing the man-centered theology of John Paul II, entitled Pope John Paul II’s Theological Journey to the Prayer Meeting of Religions in Assisi. His Volume 2, Part 1, is dedicated specifically to refuting the errors in Redemptor Hominis.

Another example that comes to mind is Christopher Ferrara’s spin job on ‘Pope’ Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger) in the pages of The Remnant in 2009. Ferrara, a lawyer by profession, was working hard to push the narrative that Benedict XVI was working on a “restoration of Tradition”, and where the facts didn’t quite fit, the lawyer found ways to exonerate his client.

Commenting on Benedict XVI’s ‘Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church’ concerning the remission of the excommunications of the four SSPX bishops consecrated by Abp. Marcel Lefebvre in 1988, Ferrara was trying to make Benedict look as pro-traditionalist as possible. Since Ratzinger’s missive also included an endorsement of the Vatican II idols of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue, however, Ferrara argued that Benedict was giving them his approval not out of conviction but only for reasons of etiquette or trendiness. He referred to them as mere “de rigueur nods to ‘ecumenism’ and ‘interreligious dialogue'”, as if Ratzinger hadn’t clearly been a dyed-in-the-wool supporter of these faith-destroying concepts for decades.

Similarly, in 2010 Ferrara was happily pushing the idea that Benedict XVI had made a “dramatic pronouncement” regarding the message of Fatima, whereas a dispassionate review of the facts indicated no such thing but in fact refuted that very contention.

The lesson to be learned here is that personal hopes and wishes must not cloud a writer’s judgment to the facts. A sober analysis of Leo’s first 365 days may indicate a lot of things, but a “return to orthodoxy” is not one of them.

On a human level, it is understandable, of course, that many people are tired of all the mess and just want it to be over. And so they are hopeful every time there is a new Novus Ordo ‘pope’ in town, that he might be the one to undo all the garbage of the last 65 years.

But the Roman Catholic Faith does not permit such a way of looking at things, for the Catholic Church cannot defect. The Holy See cannot defect. The true, orthodox Faith does not exist in elements. The Church founded by Christ is not a human institution but a divine one. For all these reasons, the idea of a successor to the Vatican II ‘popes’ one day changing it all back again is impossible. The solution, therefore, must be a different one.

While we do not pretend to have a clear, certain, or neatly-packaged alternative solution available, it cannot be that we must, in the meantime, accept an answer that we know to be false and impossible because it is ruled out by the Catholic Faith. To use an analogy: One may not know what 751 divided by 14 is, but that doesn’t mean one can believe it’s -3, when it’s obvious that that’s not the correct answer.

Meanwhile, let us continue to hold firmly to the true Faith as it was taught and believed until 1958, the death of Pope Pius XII. We know we cannot go wrong by rejecting as false popes the very men who who have proven time and again that they cannot possibly be true Popes. And we cannot go wrong by repudiating an institution that in its official organs teaches heresy, legislates sacrilege, sanctions false worship, and promotes false saints, for no matter what it claims to be, it is obviously a counterfeit of the holy Roman Catholic Church:

Eclipse of the Church: The Case for Sedevacantism (audio, video, and transcript)
Now What? Tips on how to be a real Roman Catholic in our crazy times

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima and St. Robert Bellarmine, may God hasten the inevitable end of the Counterfeit Church of Vatican II and let the holy Catholic Church shine forth once more in her true glory!

Title image source: Shutterstock (Marco Iacobucci Epp; cropped)
License: paid

Share this content now:

One Year of ‘Pope’ Leo XIV: An Unpopular Reality Check