https://kokxnews.substack.com/p/exclusive-interview-with-archbishop

Stephen Kokx: Your Excellency, many of Prevost’s decisions indicate that he wishes to continue along the heretical course of his predecessors, particularly the synodal path charted by Jorge Bergoglio. Many seem to believe we need to “give him time” and “hold out hope” that things will improve. At the same time, it seems Prevost’s agenda is quite clear and that silence or “giving him the benefit of the doubt” – while also putting a more positive spin on his reign – could cause scandal by omission and/or by creating false hope. What do you make of these arguments and how should Catholics be viewing this “pontificate” a little over two months in?
Carlo Maria Viganò: None of us can judge the internal forum, that is, the interior dispositions with which a person acts or speaks: only Our Lord, who sees into the depths of our hearts, can do that. But this does not mean that we cannot express an assessment on the external forum, that is, on the effects and consequences that a person’s actions or statements can have in general or in a specific context. This also applies to Leo, whose election is seen by many as a sign of change from the disastrous period of Bergoglian usurpation, even though there is no evidence to suggest this. Indeed, Leo’s governance actions, appointments, and public statements are multiplying, demonstrating his complete alignment with his predecessor of ill-fated memory.
I myself, as I think many noted in the days immediately following the election, preferred to refrain from publicly expressing my views on Leo with comments that might have seemed hasty.
After just over two months, however, I believe it is possible to find consistency in Leo’s actions and statements with the line drawn by Bergoglio. And perhaps that impromptu appearance of Sister Nathalie Becquart 1 and other members of the Synod elite for a selfie with the newly elected pope 2 today acquires a significance that may have initially escaped most. The message we can glean from this – and which is accompanied by the blissful and satisfied smiles of many ultra-progressive Electors (among them Cardinal Cupich of Chicago) who appeared on the Loggia after the white smoke – is that the synodal path from which the Bergoglian and post-Bergoglian Church can in no way escape has already been mapped out, and that Leo was elected on the fourth ballot as the continuator of the synodal mandate, and not of the munus petrinum.
I’ll say it without mincing words: the synodal lobby expects Leo to lend canonical legitimacy to a subversive process of disposing of the Papacy; a sort of voluntary abdication of the Monarch in favor of a Parliament that, in response to the surrender of the power of jurisdiction and governance, recognizes him as having an honorary primacy that can be useful at the ecuмenical level. In a legal paradox, this lobby demands that the holder of a divine right exercise supreme authority in order to transmit that right to the synod, something the Pope cannot do. This ecclesial coup is intended to carry out to its extreme consequences the revolutionary process inaugurated at Vatican II with the episcopal collegiality of Lumen Gentium,3 extending the governance of the Catholic Church to the laity and to women, to the complete detriment of the indissoluble bond between the power of Holy Orders and the power of Jurisdiction that has existed in the Church since time immemorial. On the other hand, the extension to women of functions previously reserved for clerics opens up a practical opportunity for the introduction of para-ministerial roles such as deaconesses and non-ordained ministers. It is impossible not to see also in this the fulfillment of what the Agenda 2030 requests for Gender Equality.

I do not know if my brother Bishops and the faithful realize the mortal threat this subversive and fraudulent action represents for the Catholic Church. What the Revolution did in Catholic nations is being accomplished here at the ecclesial level: abolishing the divine right monarchy and replacing it with the fraud of popular sovereignty, while in reality the aim is to shift power into the hands of an elite and transform it into a tyranny. Synodalization in this sense, or rather the pseudo-democratization of the Church, will constitute the instrument and cause of her destruction, exactly as has already occurred in the civil sphere. This aversion to the sacred Kingship of the Papacy manifests all of Satan’s hatred: for in Catholic Monarchs as well as in the Roman Pontiff there shines forth the Sacred Majesty of Christ the King and Pontiff, who reigns from the Throne of the Cross.
This democratization – in name only, because in reality power rests with the lobby – necessarily entails a bureaucratization of the Church, and we know that bureaucracy is one of Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ’s main tools of control. Bureaucrats, behind the pretext of “democratic” and “synodal” procedures, can manipulate assemblies, steer votes, shape consensus, and make it appear that a proposal arises spontaneously from the grassroots, while in fact it has been carefully crafted by those who manage the entire organizational apparatus of the Synod. It is a colossal fiction, a deception that grotesquely replicates the disintegration of civil society after 1789. A fraud that will also lead to the Terror, the dictatorship of a faceless and nameless body, which will promulgate climate dogmas and new sins against the environment, excommunications for harming migrants or for denying the dogma of LGBTQ+ inclusion, and will do so in the name of the synodal Church. In this case, however, there is no King Louis to guillotine: the monarch has already bowed to the globalist idols and his surrender appears convinced and desired, almost planned ahead of time.
To those who persist in idealizing Leo’s image according to a model that is certainly comforting but does not correspond to reality, I advise them to evaluate the facts for what they are, and not try to adapt them to their own desires. I begin with an indisputable fact: that Robert Francis Prevost was appointed Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops and created Cardinal in 2023 by Bergoglio himself. And if Bergoglio had even the vaguest suspicion that Prevost would not be consistent with his governing line, he would never have elevated him to the cardinalate, nor would he have placed him at the head of a strategic Dicastery like the one that decides on the appointments of Bishops.
I fear that Leo represents “Modernism with a human face” – to borrow the expression “Socialism with a human face” associated with the Prague Spring of 1968 – and that his undeniably persuasive and affable manner may mislead many, especially “conservative Catholics,” leading them to create a virtual image of the Pope that, however, does not seem to be borne out by reality. The time between the Nuntio vobis and the promulgation of the “green” Missa votiva has seen a series of pronouncements on various topics come to light, all of which show us a Leo who is fully committed to conciliar and synodal ecclesiology, with the sole difference from his predecessor being his more polite demeanor.
Let us not forget that during the psycho-pandemic, Bishop Prevost did not hesitate to support the pro-vaccine narrative, recommending the use of masks, social distancing, and compliance with the WHO’s useless and harmful health regulations. His recent calls for a “green conversion” employ theological terminology that transforms an antiscientific psycho-environmentalist theory, steeped in neo-Malthusianism and Gnosticism, into a far more presentable Religion of Nature, to which he bows as the head of the Church of Rome, a key testimonial of globalism.



But if the architects of the Agenda 2030 are avowedly enemies of Our Lord Jesus Christ and His Church; if their false emergencies serve to legitimize false solutions that involve the extermination of part of humanity and the enslavement of the survivors, how on earth, I wonder, can a Pope not realize the enormous moral responsibility he assumes in ratifying the coup d’état of the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr?
How will the tribunal of History – and the infallible tribunal of Christ the King and Pontiff – judge this betrayal of the munus petrinum?
Leo finds himself at a crossroads: either choose the broad and comfortable path of the consensus of the world and of Christ’s enemies and lose his soul along with the Flock entrusted to him by the Lord; or choose the narrow and steep path of following Christ (sequela Christi) and returning to Tradition, in bearing heroic witness of Christ, and Christ Crucified (1 Cor 2:2). The time has come to close once and for all the “conciliar experience,” with its terrible failures and devastation on all fronts. To persist on this path of self-destruction and suicidal perdition would mean making oneself responsible for a foretold ruin, encouraging it rather than denouncing it and fighting it by every means. Let us confidently remember Our Lord’s words to Peter: I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when you have turned again, strengthen your brothers (Mt 22:32).
16 July 2025
Beatæ Mariæ Virginis de Monte Carmelo

• Undersecretary of the General Secretariat of the Synod.
• https://zenit.org/2025/05/08/which-is-the-first-docuмent-signed-by-leo-xiv-here-is-the-video-and-first-selfie-with-women/
• The Synod “constitutes a further act of reception of the Council, prolongs its inspiration and relaunches its prophetic power for today’s world” (Final Docuмent, n. 5). See in this regard the Pathways for the Implementation Phase of the Synod published by the General Secretariat of the Synod on 7 July 2025 (here)

It is obvious, but it is very good that Apb. Vigano is saying it, because the others are silent on the Leo question.

So great to hear someone make basic sense in a world gone insane.