LIFE IN A LIONS’ CAGE OR THE ROAD TO THE DESERT?

Prologue

This writing is addressed to those faithful who, in the current ecclesiastical situation, recognize serious deviations from the Church’s previous path and have suffered under the Pontificate of Francis. Its purpose is to help them discern the newly begun Pontificate of Leo XIV. It is also addressed to those faithful who seek guidance and have become uncertain because they perceive contradictions between what the Church has always taught and what now emanates from a large part of the hierarchy.

Surprisingly, many traditional Catholics, who out of conviction rejected the course taken by Francis, now place their hopes in Leo XIV. Perhaps this writing can help them not to neglect the spirit of discernment and to not renounce the critical distance they had maintained until now, replacing it with an illusory vision of the new Pontificate.

Introduction

The Catholic Church is in a grave existential crisis. It is on the verge of either renouncing the mission entrusted to it by the Risen Lord or transforming it into something else, thus falling into insignificance.

The philosopher and author Dietrich von Hildebrand, whom Pope Pius XII called “the Doctor of the Church of the 20th Century”, described in 1973, in his book The Ravaged Vineyard, how the enemy was within the Church. He calls it the “fifth column”, made up of priests, theologians, and bishops who have lost their faith but nevertheless remain in the Church and in office.

According to Hildebrand, these internal enemies of the Church have two objectives. The first is to undermine the Church from within and destroy it under the pretext of progress and reform. In this case, one can even discern hatred toward the Church. Their second objective is to transform it into a humanitarian organization. To achieve this, it must be secularized and desacralized. In order to carry out this transformation, they also resort to the concepts of reform, progress, and adaptation to modern man. These protagonists have fallen into a grave deception. They do not want to destroy the Church, but they believe it must adapt more to the world and modernize itself in order to fulfill its task.

Although the motives may be different in each case, the goal they pursue is the same. The Church must be stripped of its supernatural character and, with it, of the mission entrusted to it by the Lord himself (Mt 28:19-20).

Has the work of destruction already been completed?

To a large extent it has. Under the influence of modernism, which impacts both doctrine and moral teaching, the Church has become spiritually ill. Moreover, since it has not overcome this illness, anti-Christian and demonic powers are gaining increasing influence over it.

If we use the terminology of the philosopher Hildebrand, we could say that the “fifth column” managed to rise to the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy when the Argentine Jorge Mario Bergoglio took office as Petrine minister.

The devastating consequences of the last Pontificate are evident. Many faithful barely recognize their Church anymore. They miss the clarity of doctrine. They hardly hear sermons that move people, calling them to conversion and sanctification. They face a strongly horizontal mentality and an ecclesiastical hierarchy that often applies inclusivism in the religious sphere, instead of proclaiming salvation in Christ to all people. The emphasis is on love of neighbor without starting primarily from the love of God, which enables us to truly love our neighbor. The glorification of God has largely been lost.

In my previous posts, I described some serious wounds inflicted on the Church during the previous Pontificate¹.

This erroneous path, which experienced a hellish revitalization under Francis’ leadership, will continue to have its destructive effect after his death unless the course is corrected at its roots.

A deeply disturbing and painful fact is that there was very little resistance to Francis’ course within the episcopate (with the exception of the Fiducia Supplicans declaration, which was rejected by a considerable number of bishops). It is true that in 2016, shortly after the publication of Amoris Laetitia, four cardinals wrote “Dubia”, but, receiving no response, this resistance dissipated.

The Election of Leo XIV

After Francis’ death, many devout Catholics placed their hopes in his successor. They prayed insistently for the election of a Pope of true faith who would put the Church back on track.

On May 8, 2025, the Conclave elected Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, who chose the name Leo XIV.

Meanwhile, more than seventy days have passed since his election, and so far, no change of course can be recognized. Leo XIV has made it clear from the beginning that he wants to continue the path begun by Francis. Not only has he not criticized him at all, but he has praised him time and again². As in the case of Francis, the confusing appointments of bishops and other church officials reveal the direction he wants to follow³. Likewise, Leo XIV’s emphasis on a “synodal Church” and his support for the “synodal process” initiated by Francis clearly point in a certain direction⁴.

It is true that the style has changed under Leo’s leadership. It seems more Catholic, more refined, and more thoughtful. But there should be no illusions, as so far there has been no substantial change that would confirm the hopes of many faithful. Francis’ course continues.

A Look Back

It can be said that, after the Second Vatican Council, a modernist spirit has increasingly spread in the Church. Some believe the problem lies in the Council itself. Others speak of the so-called “spirit of the Council,” which was used as a pretext for all kinds of innovations and pretensions. For my part, I would like to speak of a “different spirit” (cf. 2 Cor 11:4), which is evident wherever positions contrary to Church doctrine are increasingly defended.

The Popes of the past had already warned strongly about modernism and its destructive effects. They wanted to protect the faithful from philosophical currents that could affect the faith of the Church and prove dangerous to them. However, in the long run, all these warnings and measures could not prevent the spread of the poison of modernism. Under the pretext of the desired renewal of the Church—as described by Dietrich von Hildebrand—the Church increasingly adopted the spirit of the world, which aggravated the crisis of faith. The basic convictions of Catholics were questioned, and moral teaching was shaken.

After the Second Vatican Council, many priests and religious renounced their vocation. They wanted to leave behind a past perceived as narrow and isolated from the world. Visible evidence of this can be found in the fact that some religious women began to dress in a worldly manner, and many priests considered the cassock no longer appropriate for the new direction embarked upon by the Council. What a lack of understanding of what a religious vocation is!

Likewise, the conviction that all men, without exception, are called to follow Jesus Christ and enter the bosom of the Catholic Church was gradually lost. Instead, a religious pluralism gave way, which later, during the pontificate of Francis, gave rise to the erroneous “Abu Dhabi Declaration.”⁵

The rite of the Holy Mass was modified by Pope Paul VI to better adapt it to Protestant thought and make it more understandable to the faithful. Optimistic expectations were raised for a new springtime for the Church, and some believed that it had dawned with the Second Vatican Council. But this was not the case!

Although it is true that after the Second Vatican Council, new communities and movements were founded fervently dedicated to various forms of evangelization, they were often perceived as lacking in traditional doctrine and lacking a foundation in the following of Christ as it had been taught and lived throughout the centuries. This led to an ever-increasing adaptation to the “spirit of the Council,” which reached its climax (at least until now) during the pontificate of Francis. Therefore, these new communities hardly ever showed any determined resistance to the deviations of the ecclesiastical hierarchy.

But even monastic communities were not spared the influence of this “different spirit.” Since the vast majority adopted the Novus Ordo Missae, they partly lost the profound identity that the traditional rite had conferred on the faithful, and especially on the religious, for so many centuries. The same applies to priests and parishes. Since the Church was weakened at such a crucial point, its spiritual strength to defend itself against this “different spirit” was also diminished. The ascetic life was considerably reduced. The precepts related to fasting were almost completely suppressed. Concessions were made in almost every area, so that following Christ ceased to pose a challenge to the faithful and, in this sense, adapted to the ways of the world.

Instead of authoritative sermons urging conversion and sanctification, more and more sermons were heard that were in line with political correctness and invited people to the communion of the Church even though they had not ordered their lives according to God’s commandments and the demands of the Gospel. Little was said about the ultimate realities of mankind, the so-called “last things.”

Practically everything was intended to be renewed in accordance with the “spirit of the Council.” It seemed that, under the domination of this “different spirit,” a “different Church” had infiltrated the Holy Catholic Church, which ended up taking control, falsifying and imitating the true Church.

The “Different Spirit”

This list could be much longer. In light of the discernment of spirits, it must be recognized that there is indeed a “different spirit” at work to strip the Church of her spiritual beauty under the pretext of renewal, clothing her with a kind of “cult of earthly realities” and thus making her docile to its further influence. It is not difficult to see who this spirit is. Without doubt, it is Lucifer, who has infiltrated even the highest offices of the Church. If we overlook this dimension when reflecting on the crisis of the Church and limit ourselves to describing its devastating consequences, we will not have the appropriate spiritual weapons to resist the spiritual force behind all this and which is fostering the growing apostasy.

During the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI, the Catholic faith was preserved in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Therefore, this spirit had to operate more in secret, although it could already be identified in acts of disobedience and doctrinal and moral deviations, which unfortunately were not combated with sufficient determination by the hierarchs who had the duty to correct them. Dietrich von Hildebrand laments the lethargy of the guardians of the faith and writes: “I think of the bishops who, when it comes to proceeding against heretical theologians or parish priests or against a blasphemous distortion of worship, make no use of their authority.”⁶

However, thanks to the Popes who remained faithful to doctrine, it was as if this “different spirit” were locked away like a “genie in a bottle.” This reality changed with the election of Jorge Mario Bergoglio in 2013. Continuing with the comparison in the aforementioned story, it was as if the cork had been uncorked, allowing that spirit to emerge and act almost unhindered, infiltrating the highest office in the Catholic Church: the papacy.

After a long period of observing Francis’ pontificate and thanks to the discernment of spirits, I came to the conclusion that a false prophecy was at work within him. Guided and influenced by this “different spirit,” Leo XIV’s predecessor plunged the Church into chaos. To this end, he enlisted the support of certain groups within the hierarchy who had long been working to build a “different Church.” He himself created an environment favorable to his goals, so that there was little significant resistance to the derailed course on which he led the Church. The passive support of many pastors, through a painful and often incomprehensible silence, provided what was needed to devastate the Lord’s vineyard.

Will Leo XIV continue his false prophecy?

Could it be that, upon his election, Cardinal Prevost was aware that Francis’ pontificate had taken a wrong turn and needed to be radically corrected? Or will he be able to recognize this even with the grace of his ministry? Would he be willing to make a radical change of course, even if it meant a kind of martyrdom and having to flee into the desert, given the situation in the Church that was almost out of control?

It should be noted that, until Francis’ death, Cardinal Prevost was one of his close collaborators. He clearly fully supports his predecessor’s leadership and wants to continue it.

As mentioned above, he seems to reflect greater catholicity, have more pleasant manners, and make more reference to the Gospel. But this is the least one can expect from someone who holds the office of Pope. However, this positive change has raised hopes among some faithful that Leo XIV will be the one to change the course. However, the decisive criterion is whether the Church returns to the course from which it has strayed and corrects its errors, or whether, on the contrary, it continues to spiral into apostasy by continuing along the path begun by Francis. If the latter occurs, even the new Pontiff’s more Catholic appearance could be exploited by the “different spirit” to deceive the faithful.

If there is no clear rectification, the “false prophecy” will continue. This would pose an even greater danger, as Francis’ erroneous course would then be consolidated and reaffirmed by his successor. In this way, the poison of false doctrine and practice could continue to spread unhindered and be tacitly promoted or tolerated from the highest levels.

Thus, Catholics who do not wish to follow this course are once again faced with an existential decision, or rather an updating of the decision already made: will they simply adapt to the new Pontificate or will they withdraw from all cooperation with that part of the Church that is sinking ever deeper into apostasy?

The first option would mean ensconcing themselves in the “lion’s cage” and trying not to be devoured. In the long run, it will probably be very difficult to escape the contagion of the poison hostile to the Church and the reach of those who consider the new direction of the Church valid and desired by God. The second option would involve retreating into the desert with the Lord.

The Church in the Desert

What does this term refer to? First of all, it must be made very clear that the “Church in the desert” responds to an emergency situation, as apostasy is proliferating at the institutional level in the Catholic Church. In many places, it is no longer possible to live the Catholic faith authentically, as it was handed down over time and as was most natural just a century ago.

The “Church in the desert” is by no means a new Church or a specific community, but rather is made up of those faithful who are unwilling to follow the erroneous path of much of the hierarchy or become its accomplices. They simply wish to remain faithful to the Lord and to the Church. This implies that they have clearly recognized that any hierarchy that no longer follows the Lord’s instructions and, on the contrary, actively or passively promotes an erroneous path has lost its spiritual authority. Therefore, obedience cannot be rendered to it either. To do so would be contradictory and would end up involving the faithful in the wrong path. It must be made absolutely clear that, in such a case, “we must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). This conviction will become particularly important when the current hierarchy attempts to resort to obedience to force the faithful to adhere to a wrong path.

Personal Refuges

There are already a good number of faithful who have perceived the hierarchy’s errors and have taken various measures to escape. They cling to the traditional Catholic faith, but many of them have withdrawn from parish life and even from their communities or religious orders because the latter have not recognized the gravity of the errors and, therefore, have not decisively rejected them. These believers are often seeking the opportunity to participate in Holy Masses celebrated with dignity. Often, they specifically seek the traditional Mass. Some choose to watch livestreams of the Holy Mass, which highlights a great need.

Refuges within Church Structures

It is possible that certain refuges still exist within Church structures that have not been affected by the synodal process intended to be implemented in all parishes. This may be easier in some countries than in others. However, it is probably only a matter of time before this possibility is completely restricted. Just think of the times of communist persecution, when there were few options for escape for the faithful. Yet, they had the great consolation of being in union with the Supreme Pontiff. For the time being, we cannot take comfort in that certainty, and that is painful for a Catholic. So now the Lord must be our only consolation!

If the persecutions within the Church, which have already begun, were to intensify, it would become very difficult for the Catholic faithful to create living and safe “oases” within existing Church structures. No one knows better than a Catholic how to identify the behavior, meeting places, and actions of other Catholics. Therefore, if a Catholic has fallen under the influence of that “different spirit” we spoke of, he or she may even think he or she is serving God by persecuting and denouncing those faithful whom he or she considers dissident (cf. Jn 16:2).

Refuges Outside Current Church Structures

To help the faithful preserve the treasures of our Holy Church and offer concrete spiritual resistance against those powers that seek to exploit it for their own agendas, “oases” should be created that are completely independent of the ecclesiastical structure.

It would be best if they were somewhat hidden places. These “oases” could serve as meeting points for other faithful who would otherwise live their faith in isolation. Such refuges could arise both within and outside of cities.

The faithful of the “Church in the desert” need to be shepherded by priests who have either been removed from office for reasons of faith or have decided out of conviction that they cannot continue the erroneous course taken at the official level. This requires courage and, above all, the firm conviction that the Lord wants it in the current emergency situation. It would be an important service that priests could provide to the faithful to enable them to receive the holy sacraments and strengthen them in various ways.

Furthermore, it would be a grace if one or another bishop would realize the gravity of the situation and understand how much he can serve the Church by ministering to her in the midst of the desert, refusing to be complicit in a mistaken path. The faithful would be grateful, for then it would become clear that this is not a rejection of the ecclesiastical hierarchy itself (which is a gift from God), but of the abuse of authority that is taking place to the detriment of souls. It is certainly a difficult decision. But let us think, for example, of Saint Athanasius, who suffered persecution and numerous exiles for rejecting the heresy of Arianism and preventing its spread. He is an example that we must obey God rather than a religious authority that leads us in the wrong direction. The danger that the ecclesiastical hierarchy and the faithful will fall increasingly into confusion under the influence of an anti-Christian spirit is even greater than in Saint Athanasius’s time.

At this point, I would like to make special mention of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, whose prophetic voice has provided comfort and guidance to many faithful. He also strives to support those priests and religious who suffer persecution for their faith and to ensure sound priestly formation based on sound doctrine.

Long-standing refuges in the desert

There are groups of faithful who retreated to the desert some time ago. Among them is, for example, the Society of Saint Pius X, whose founder, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, concluded that the changes introduced into the life of the Church after the Second Vatican Council were incompatible with the Catholic faith, and so he took the measures he considered necessary in response to this crisis.

There are also those groups of faithful who, some for several decades and others more recently, consider the See of Peter vacant or doubt the legitimacy of the person who occupies it. Some of them maintain that Pius XII was the last legitimate pope and that, since then, the See of Peter has not been validly occupied. Others date that time later and consider Benedict XVI to be the last valid pope. I only mention these groups for the sake of completeness, although I do not know them personally, but only from what I have read about them.

Balta-Lelija and the Antichrist

To preserve and practice the Catholic faith without adulteration, it is not only a matter of removing oneself from the reach of those authorities, most of whom have themselves fallen victim to deception, although such distancing is legitimate and important. However, the realization of the dangerous deviation of the current hierarchy must inspire spiritual resistance, because the Church belongs to the Lord. Furthermore, we cannot forget the many faithful who are drawn into these deceptions.

The spiritual weapons we must resort to are: prayer, the path of holiness, sacrifices in secret, the clear proclamation of the Word of God, the defense of the Church’s doctrine without false concessions, adherence to the treasure of the Church, and, last but not least, the celebration of the Holy Mass, without trivialization or desacralization. In this way, the Church can remain under God’s active guidance.

Everything seems to indicate that an Antichrist is approaching—or even the last one, who will manifest himself at the End of Time—seeking to seize world dominion to pervert Christ’s reign. For a predetermined time, God will allow him to exercise dominion, and to this end, he will resort to all modern means to reach as many people as possible. The Church, led by a pope and bishops of right faith, should be the first to warn, prepare, and strengthen the flock to defend itself against the wolves. Until not long ago, that was the situation. However, since the leaders of the Church are not assuming this duty, and there is even a perceived cooperation with anti-Christian powers, the “little flock”, strengthened by their Lord, will have to assume responsibility.

May many faithful recognize that, in one way or another, the path to the wilderness is the appropriate one in these times of emergency! May the Lord grant you the strength to prefer to suffer persecution and rejection rather than cooperate with wrong paths and deny the Lord in any way!

Contact: ecclesiaindeserto@elijamission.net