January 2026
Salve et Vale
~ Leo's Long Goodbye ~
Last November, during his address to the Italian episcopate gathered in Assisi, Leo XIV stated that his guidelines for the Church "correspond to the perspectives that emerged during the synodal journey of the Church in Italy." An alarming statement of intent in light of The Leaven of Bread and Hope; the shameful synodal summary document published the previous month by the degenerate crew seated before him (see "Apostles of Sexual Deviance" in our last edition). Leo knew full well that their "synodal journey" had led them to embrace sodomy, trans-sexuality, and female deacons. Portentously, that alarming knowledge did not curb his enthusiasm.
"It is now up to you, bishops, to outline the pastoral guidelines for coming years," urged the Holy Father, insisting that they develop a "synodal spirit."
By this he means a revolutionary spirit. One that promotes still more novelties: such as greater lay involvement in the consultation process for the appointment of new bishops (what could possibly go wrong?). And of course, endless, divisive, destabilising, disorienting change.
"A synodal Church [...] needs to renew itself continually," stated Leo. "We must avoid allowing inertia... to slow down the necessary changes."
To that end, he called for bishops to cultivate the subversive attitude that Pope Francis termed, "learning to say goodbye" — that is, discerning how to bid adieu to one's former Catholic position.
Indeed, this papacy, even more than the previous one given the young-ish Leo, is shaping up as an interminable deconstruction: a very long goodbye to the Faith of our Fathers.
The intent and process are touted daily. Most recently apropos the Holy Trinity and Our Lady.
Goodbye de fide doctrine
Concerning the former, the ancient and dogmatic filioque professing the double procession — the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son — was effectively shunted aside by the Holy Father to appease the Orthodox.
He is not alone in having done so, of course. Recent popes including Benedict XVI and Francis have omitted the phrase at ecumenical prayer services. A change of tack by Leo was therefore unlikely. Nonetheless, his recent resort to hackneyed and spurious ecumenical tropes to justify obscuring and downplaying a term the Catholic Encyclopaedia describes as "a theological formula of great dogmatic and historical importance", is hard to stomach.
In his Apostolic Letter In Unitate Fidei ("In the Unity of Faith") released on 23 November, Leo calls on Christians to move beyond "theological controversies" that no longer serve the cause of unity and to rediscover together the faith professed at the Council of Nicaea.
While extolling supposedly great achievements of the ecumenical movement over the past 60 years (utter delusion), Leo footnotes that the filioque "is not found in the text of Constantinople; it was inserted into the Latin Creed by Pope Benedict VIII in 1014 and is a subject of Orthodox-Catholic dialogue."
The impression thus conveyed is that its insertion (a mere thousand years ago!) makes it little more than an optional extra. What he omits, of course, is that its usage goes all the way back to the early Church; to the very Nicene period he whitewashed to suit his ecumenical purpose!
In other words, by sleight of hand, as it were, Leo preferred to stress the absence of the filioque from the early Creed rather than explain its absence: viz., that the phrase and its meaning were not sufficiently controversial for the Church Fathers to incorporate it into the Profession of Faith at that time. Despite its usage in various Western Councils and liturgies thereafter, seven hundred years passed before absolute clarification, by way of its formal insertion in the Creed by Rome, was deemed necessary.
"We must therefore leave behind theological controversies that have lost their raison d'être in order to develop a common understanding...", insists Leo.
But this Modernist "goodbye" to pesky "theological controversies" is a Catholic nightmare.
Seen as a phrase of no great import to be horse-traded for Orthodox favour, the stealthy deconstruction of de fide teachings like filioque does nothing to achieve Leo's quest for ecumenical unity ("all together in one faith and one love").
It does, however, foreshadow Anti-Christ.
Goodbye pre-eminent Mother
As for Our Blessed Mother, a consultant to Leo's Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith (DDF), Mauricio Gronchi, doubled down against negative reaction to the DDF's recent document Mater Populi Fidelis which urged the faithful against using the Marian titles "Co-Redemptrix" and "Mediatrix" (of all graces).
"It is superstition to think that Mary has the role of holding back God's wrath, " he told Spanish news outlet ACI Prensa. "Whoever thinks this way is not in accordance with the Gospel."
If this were so, Our Lady herself would be at odds with the Gospel of her own Son! Ever protective of her children, in approved apparitions our Mother affirms her constraining influence on the Father's righteous wrath. Typically, at Akita, which both the local Bishop and Cardinal Ratzinger declared consonant with Fatima, she said: "At the Rosary pray for the pope, the bishops, and the priests. Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able to still save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in me will be saved [from the calamities]."
For Gronchi, neither such "superstition" nor the ancient usage of Co-Redemptrix is of any account. "It does not seem that new truths [about Mary] ought to be affirmed," he huffed. Well, it's a point of view. But again, the subtext of Catholic deconstruction and ecumenical appeasement is palpable.
Hello new religion!
Amid all this corrosion, as if to sum up our dire predicament, a 20 November headline on the Radical Fidelity substack trumpeted:
Most Powerful Woman in Vatican Again tells the Whole World they are Inventing a New Religion.
The sub-head elaborated:
"Not only can she not say that the Church of Christ's mission is the salvation of souls, but she reduces it to the nonsensical and vague "attitude that begins with listening to one another."
The offender in question is one Nathalie Becquart, a French theologian and 'nun' who doubles as Undersecretary of
(you guessed!) the General Secretariat of the Synod. She articulated synodical subversion throughout an interview with Katolisch.English, the mouthpiece of the synodically unhinged German counter-church.
Asked about Pope Leo referring to "cultural differences" in the implementation process and "how synodality can be lived in such different contexts without jeopardising the unity of the Church?", she replied:
The Pope was very clear when he made it clear [sic] that the Church was not looking for a standardised model. Synodality will not consist of a model in which everyone in every country says: this is how it has to be done. ... [Leo] emphasised that... there are many ways of being Church [sic] and that no single model of church life should be imposed."
Of course, "many ways of being Church" and "not looking for a standardised model" is Modernist code for Novus Ordo anarchy and balkanisation. Radical Fidelity slammed Becquart's claims as standing "in direct contrast with the Church's perennial teaching on unity, universality, and divine constitution":
The Catholic Church has always understood herself not as a federation of culturally defined communities, but as a single, visible, hierarchically ordered society instituted by Christ. Her unity is one of the four essential marks: a unity of faith, sacraments and governance under the Roman Pontiff. Popes from Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum to Pius XII in Mystici Corporis consistently taught that the Church possesses a determinate form, structure, and mission that do not fluctuate with sociological context. To imply that no single model of ecclesial life should guide the Church suggests that her very constitution is malleable, evolving from below rather than received from Christ.
Hello counter-church!
We could go on for some time in the same disturbing vein.
Therefore, since Leo XIV has made Jorge's Modernist pathway his own, may we suggest that he not only make Salve et Vale—'Hello and Goodbye'— the masthead of his synodal counter-church, but also add it to his coat of arms? Having picked up his predecessor's revolutionary baton with such zeal it seems only right and just.
Meantime, let us pray for his Pauline conversion: that he might greet the Light and farewell the darkness, not vice versa.