The Truth about New Pope Leo XIV

Another Chameleon Arises to Beguile the People of God

Pope Leo XIV has already won over corporate press. Their panegyrics are ceaseless. What do the bosses of the media of mass communication know that that the public does not?

In the war of ideas, among the almost always outclassed conservative and “traditional” Catholics, there is at present a sense of hope predicated entirely on what can only be imagery: Robert Prevost chose for himself a papal name that indicates he will be a successor of the allegedly conservative pontiff Leo XIII, who has been dubbed, “A Light from Heaven.” Moreover, when the new Leo appeared at the window of the Vatican May 8 to receive the acclaim of the assembled masses in St. Peter’s Square, he was attired in traditional garb.

Among certain people image prevails over reality. What is the reality?

“He (the new pope) is a great friend of Cardinal Blase Cupich, the Archbishop of Chicago, who has been making Bergoglian (Pope Francis style ) bishops for the past two years, and who was supported before the conclave by the most determined progressives (for example, Andrea Grillo, a fiery anti-traditional liturgy activist…” (L’Abbé Claude Barthe, “Élection rapide de Robert Francis Prévost qui devient Léon XIV. Et après?)

When Leo XIV’s pal Cupich was the bishop of Spokane, Washington he surreptitiously placed Jesuit child molesters in the order's retirement home on the campus of Gonzaga University— a hundred yards from St. Aloysius Church where young families attended. Those molesters had free access to the church and campus grounds.

In the archdiocese of Chicago which he was appointed to lead after being elevated to the rank of cardinal by Pope Francis, Cardinal Cupich imposed a complete ban on the Latin Mass. This is the new pope’s “great friend.”

The suppression of the immemorial Latin mass by Pope Francis, who is often described as humble and non-authoritarian, was actually one of the most tyrannical moves of his hyper authoritarian papacy. His crackdown is often papered over by the mainstream media.

This banned Mass entails more than a matter of language. The doctrine expressed in the old Latin rite, which is at least 1,000 years old, strongly pertains to the sacrificial dimension of Jesus on Calvary.

In the past, Catholics in Ireland and England were fined, jailed and even killed for attending it, or in the case of priests, offering it. For “Catholic” leaders to suppress it, is a grotesque betrayal of the thousands of martyrs who suffered on behalf of it. Its current popularity is largely among the young and young families. It is not a case of nostalgia or a relic primarily for the elderly.

Pope Francis with future Pope Leo XIV

Francis detested the Catholic Church as it existed for 1,400 years. Only a hater of Catholicism would persecute youthful married Catholic couples desiring to raise large families within the fold of the Mass that buttressed the Irish race and Saxon England, and sanctified Francis of Assisi, Anthony of Pauda, Dante, Richard the Lionheart, Savonarola, Theresa of Avila, Mother Cabrini, J.R.R. Tolkien, Flannery O’Connor and tens of millions more.

Those in our time who attempt to worship at the Latin Mass (Tridentine or Sarum rites) represent the one major growth area in the Church in what is otherwise a demographic desert. Francis, his partner in crime Cupich (and many prelates of his ilk), have done their utmost to crush this ancient liturgy.

Francis even poked fun at Catholics who have large families, sneering at them for “breeding like rabbits.” He made Andreas Serrano, an “artist” who immersed a crucifix in a vat of urine as part of an “avant-garde exhibit,” as his guest of honor in the Vatican. This is Revelation of the Method.

Francis was a true son of the Renaissance popes and in light of their revolution, as documented here, he hewed to the new “tradition” which has existed since 1438-39 when the Greek magus Plethon lectured at the Council of Florence and impressed the assembled prelates with his illuminism. Plethon’s disciple, the banker Cosimo de’ Medici, subsequently founded the Platonic Academy which propagated Neoplatonic-Hermeticism throughout the Church.

For an agent of Neoplatonic-Heremicism like Robert Prevost to take the name Leo XIV is revealing. On the Right wing of the Church, Leo XIII, in whose footsteps Prevost is signaling he will follow, was at least to a certain extent, a chameleon, if not an outright fraud.

Leo XIII is commemorated by conservatives chiefly for two of his encyclicals: in 1884 Humanum Genus (“Human Race”) contra Freemasonry, and in 1891 Rerum Novarum (“New Things”), proscribing certain predatory financial practices. It was said that both of these solemn papal documents of the ordinary magisterium were issued with the assistance of leading Catholic scholars in the fields of economics and occult studies.

If this was the case, then no erudite “expert” on the occult engaged in a competent takedown of Freemasonry coming from the top of the Roman Church with its vaunted archives and library extending back millennia, could fail to state that the masonic lodge is Kabbalism for gentiles.

Without that key, no true understanding of the Masons can be obtained. Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus consists of more than 7,000 words. Not one of them is Kabbalah (or cabala). The papacy since the Renaissance has covertly revered the Kabbalah.

Much of what is mistaken for the wily stratagems of Niccolo Machiavelli employed by the Vatican are actually reflective of the pedagogy of Kabbalah. The Kabbalah since the late 15th century has had a protected papal status, which Leo XIII maintained and which, then as now, gullible persons took for a principled, comprehensive stand against masonic infiltration.

What is the twilight language message conveyed by Leo XIII’s Humanum Genus? Window-dressing. Image over reality. Self-censorship and obeissance to a hidden god entirely hostile to Jesus Christ and His gospel.

Rerum Novarum is another cheat on the part of Pope Leo XIII. Catholics in Europe beseeched the pontiff to use his encyclical to restore the Church’s absolute prohibition on the renting of money (“usury”) at any rate of interest, part of the Deposit of Faith which began to be undermined in 1515 by Medici Pope Leo X.

The Catholics of the late 19th century advised Leo that a philosophical critique of predatory financial arrangements without a ban on lending at interest would be an exercise in toothless semantics. In defiance of their pleas, Rerum Novarum was issued without the restoration of the command of Jesus in Luke 6:34-35. Yet it carries to this day the image of a magnificent rebuke to predatory bankers. (The details of this bamboozle are in my book, Usury in Christendom: The Mortal Sin that Was and Now is Not).

The preceding revisionist history is a truism to the top honchos of Vatican City, including, I believe, the former Robert Prevost. Therefore, choosing a name which indicates he intends to do as Leo XIII did, is a signal to those who have the eyes to see, that he will feign, chameleon-like, conservative restoration while advancing the revolution by the old tactic of “two steps forward and one back.”

Before the new pontiff’s election, S.D. Wright of LifeSite News online, published a dossier on his background. I have excerpted portions of it below. (The entire study is available here). S.D. Wright:

Prevost was born in 1955 (on September 14 to be exact, Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross—Hoffman), and entered the Order of St. Augustine in 1977 (taking his solemn vows in 1981). Soon after ordination in 1982, he joined the Peruvian Mission, and began a decades-long career in Latin American ecclesial affairs. … In 2015 he was made the bishop of Chiclayo.  In 2020, Francis named him as a member of the congregation of bishops, and in January 2023, he made him the Prefect of this congregation (now a dicastery). Francis made him a cardinal nine months later…indicating the trust and appreciation Francis had in Prevost…

…His position as Prefect of the Dicastery of Bishops means that, after Francis, he has been responsible for the selection and appointment of …bishops, as well as administering “problem cases.” 

…Even more clarity appears when we consider the appointments and cases administered under Prevost’s tenure as Prefect. For instance, in February 2023, early in his tenure as Prefect, the Dicastery announced the Apostolic Visitation of the diocese of Fréjus-Toulon, France—ending ultimately in the departure of Bishop Dominique Rey.  This becomes even clearer when we consider two contrasting cases in the U.S. First, Prevost was Prefect when the notoriously liberal Bishop Robert W. McElroy was appointed Archbishop of Washington in January 2025.  

Second, Prevost was Prefect in 2023, when the Dicastery undertook a visitation of the diocese of Tyler, Texas. This ended in the Dicastery asking conservative Bishop Strickland to resign, before he was ultimately removed by Francis.  In short, Prevost was the Prefect of the Dicastery which enabled the appointment of a notorious liberal to one of the most prominent positions in the U.S., and the deposition of the most prominent conservative in the U.S.  

It is true that the final decisions and responsibility for all such appointments and administration lay with Francis; but once again, silence implies consent. There is no warrant for assuming that Prevost has only carried out these actions under protest or against his better judgment. In any case, continuing in his role rather than resigning, Prevost signals that he believes such appointments and decisions are at least tolerable….

What sort of bishops has Prevost been helping to appoint?

As mentioned above, The Pillar claims that “Prevost saw his task as that of identifying men who embodied Pope Francis’ ideals for bishops.”

…Prevost seriously minimizes and even dismisses the importance of doctrine and the faith. He portrays a concern for doctrinal truth as “division and polemics”: 

“Divisions and polemics in the Church do not help anything. We bishops especially must accelerate this movement towards unity, towards communion in the Church.  He creates a false dichotomy between doctrine and loving Christ:  We are often preoccupied with teaching doctrine, the way of living our faith, but we risk forgetting that our first task is to teach what it means to know Jesus Christ and to bear witness to our closeness to the Lord.” (Pope Leo XIV as cardinal)

This is a very distorted way of framing the situation and suggests a clear agenda to minimize the importance of doctrine.  First, Prevost ignores that Christ’s doctrine is how we come to know him, since we cannot have charity without faith. Second, because of this dependence, it is wrong to suggest that there is an opposition between doctrine and love. Third, there is no contemporary “preoccupation” with doctrine, at risk of overshadowing “knowing Christ.” Such a suggestion is ludicrous. In an age defined by doctrinal collapse, accelerated by his late master Francis, Prevost is engaging in gaslighting…

The Pillar also noted an uncanny association with Cardinal Blasé Cupich:

“In an unusual twist, Prevost is not the only member of the Congregation for Bishops to permit a priest accused of sexually abusing a minor to reside at the same Augustinian house in Chicago. In 2018, Cardinal Blase Cupich, also a member of the congregation, apologized for allowing a different priest accused of sexual abuse to live in the very same house, apparently, Cupich said, because of a miscommunication.

The Pillar also notes:  Individuals in the Chiclayo diocese would later accuse Prevost of failing in 2022 to open an investigation into their accusations of abuse against two priests [beginning in 1997].  In March 2025, SNAP (Survivors Network of these Abused by Priests) appealed to Rome, alleging:  … that under the leadership of Cardinal Prevost, the Diocese of Chiclayo did not investigate their abuse claims and misrepresented [the alleged victims’] testimony in the report …preventing an accurate assessment of the case.

…A man who has remained “discreet” during the last few years—and indeed been promoted in that time—seems unlikely to be suitable.  However, the wider points discussed in this article—doctrinal deviations which become clear after a careful consideration of his role as Prefect for the Dicastery of Bishops—are both cause for alarm in themselves, and as shedding light on his silence. They indicate that Prevost is not a coward or a tactician, but a loyal son of Francis, and that he will continue the work of his master and benefactor…even if he does so in a more discreet and moderate way. 

This raises grave questions about whether or not Prevost can be said to profess the Catholic faith at all, and thus whether he is a member of the Church. If he is not a member of the Church, then it is not possible for him to be validly elected as pope.

At the very least, there is serious doubt on the matter: and a man whose visible membership in the Church is itself in serious doubt can only be doubtfully elected to the papacy…the resulting doubt would not be about his popularity or policies, but about his very authority. This is why great theologians and canonists held that a doubtful pope is no pope at all.

Needless to say, these points have implications that extend beyond just Prevost, applying also to those other cardinals who have been “discreet” and “moderate” in the face of Francis’ doctrinal aberrations. It is not enough to ask whether a man is prudent, discreet, or personally sincere. The question is whether he professes the faith whole and entire, in public and without compromise. If the answer is not a clear “Yes,” then the conclusion is clear: he cannot be validly elected or accepted as pope…

The Church…needs men who take seriously the words of St. Paul to the Galatians: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.” (End quote; emphasis supplied. Read the article in its entirety here).

Copyright©2025 by Independent History and Research • www.revisionisthistory.org

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE

I am grateful to the paid subscribers who make these columns possible. Please consider joining them.

Documentation of my claims about the subversion of the Church in the Renaissance is available in my book, The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (softcover, profusely illustrated, 723 pages)

I will continue this Truth Mission for as long as I have the resources to do so. Securing those resources is a constant struggle. We have not yet obtained enough paid subscriptions to sustain the full-time work required to produce these studies regularly. Donations toward the support of my research, writing and broadcasting are gratefully received: P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816—or at this link. Thank you.

I will continue this Truth Mission for as long as I have the resources to do so. Securing those resources is a constant struggle. We have not yet obtained enough paid subscriptions to sustain the full-time work required to produce these studies regularly. Donations toward the support of my research, writing and broadcasting are gratefully received: P.O. Box 849, Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83816—or at this link. Thank you.

FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The Crisis of Authority in the Catholic Church

Hidden History of the Papacy and Church of Rome: Basic Truths (2024 podcast; 32 minutes)

Memo to Pope Francis: God cannot and does not bless sin

The Ideology of Child Sex Slavery on the Right Wing of the Ruling Class

In Defense of the Indefensible: The Excruciating Convolutions of E. Michael Jones