Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s Fantasy Tour of Dialogue and Mutual Understanding Comes to Its End

As should be evident to anyone who has a modicum of sanity, the conciliar revolutionaries, much like their kindred spirits in the ranks of Judeo-Masonic globalism and garden-variety leftism, live in a fantasy world of their own creation where their ideological presuppositions and programs are the “solution” for the “better” world even though the world  becomes increasingly worse  in large measure precisely because of their false presuppositions and failed programs.

Blinded by the false, anti-apostolic nature of the Montini paradigm shift (revolution), Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV keeps referring to his own address on Nostra Aetate to justify that which is unjustifiable, namely, the counterfeit church of conciliarism’s refusal to seek the conversion of non-Catholics to the true Church by stressing the need for “dialogue” and “mutual understanding” as though the Catholic Church has any need whatsoever to “understand” false religions. 

Herewith is the false "pontiff's" to "ecumenical leaders" in Beirut, Lebanon, on Sunday, December 1, 2025, the the First Sunday of Advent:

Dear brothers and sisters,

I am deeply moved and immensely grateful to stand among you today, in this blessed land – a land exalted by the prophets of the Old Testament, who beheld in its towering cedars emblems of the righteous soul that flourishes beneath heaven’s vigilant gaze; a land where the echo of the Logos has never fallen silent, but continues to call forth, from century to century, those who desire to open their hearts to the living God.

In his Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Ecclesia in Medio Oriente, signed here in Beirut in 2012, Pope Benedict XVI emphasized that “[t]he Church’s universal nature and vocation require that she engage in dialogue with the members of other religions. In the Middle East, this dialogue is based on the spiritual and historical bonds uniting Christians to Jews and Muslims. It is a dialogue which is not primarily dictated by pragmatic, political or social considerations, but by underlying theological concerns which have to do with faith” (n. 19). Dear friends, your presence here today, in this remarkable place where minarets and church bell towers stand side by side, yet both reach skyward, testifies to the enduring faith of this Land and the steadfast devotion of its people to the one God. Here in this beloved land, may every bell toll, every adhān, every call to prayer blend into a single, soaring hymn – not only to glorify the merciful Creator of heaven and earth, but also to lift a heartfelt prayer for the divine gift of peace.

For many years, and especially in recent times, the eyes of the world have been fixed on the Middle East, the cradle of the Abrahamic religions, observing the arduous journey and the unceasing quest for the precious gift of peace. At times humanity looks at the Middle East with a sense of trepidation and disheartenment, in the face of such complex and longstanding conflicts. Yet, in the midst of these struggles, a sense of hopefulness and encouragement can be found when we focus on what unites us: our common humanity, and our belief in a God of love and mercy. In an age when coexistence can seem like a distant dream, the people of Lebanon, while embracing different religions, stand as a powerful reminder that fear, distrust and prejudice do not have the final word, and that unity, reconciliation and peace are possible. It is a mission that remains unchanged throughout the history of this beloved land: to bear witness to the enduring truth that Christians, Muslims, Druze and countless others can live together and build a country united by respect and dialogue.

Sixty years ago, the Second Vatican Council, with the promulgation of the Declaration Nostra Aetate, opened a new horizon for encounter and mutual respect between Catholics and people of different religions, emphasizing that true dialogue and collaboration is rooted in love – the only foundation for peace, justice and reconciliation. This dialogue, inspired by divine love, should embrace all people of goodwill, reject prejudice, discrimination and persecution, and affirm the equal dignity of every human being.

Though the public ministry of Jesus unfolded chiefly in Galilee and Judea, the Gospels also recount episodes where he visited the region of the Decapolis – most notably in the environs of Tyre and Sidon – where he encountered the Syro-Phoenician woman whose unwavering faith moved him to heal her daughter (cf. Mk 7:24-30). Here, the land itself becomes more than a mere site of encounter between Jesus and a pleading mother; it becomes a place where humility, trust, and perseverance overcome all barriers and meet God’s boundless love that embraces every human heart. Indeed, this is “the very core of interreligious dialogue itself: the discovery of God’s presence beyond all boundaries and the invitation to seek him together with reverence and humility” [1].

If Lebanon is renowned for its majestic cedars, the olive tree too stands as a cornerstone of its heritage. The olive tree not only adorns this space in which we gather today, but it is also revered in the sacred texts of Christianity, Judaism and Islam, serving as a timeless symbol of reconciliation and peace. Its long life and remarkable ability to flourish even in the harshest environments symbolize endurance and hope, reflecting the steadfast commitment required to nurture peaceful coexistence. From this tree flows oil that heals – a balm for physical and spiritual wounds – manifesting the boundless compassion of God for all who suffer. Its oil also provides light, serving as a reminder of the call to illuminate our hearts through faith, charity and humility.

As the roots of the cedars and olive trees delve deep and spread wide across the earth, so too the Lebanese people are scattered throughout the world, yet bound together by the enduring strength and timeless heritage of your homeland. Your presence here and across the globe enriches the world with your multi-millennial heritage, but it also represents a vocation. In an ever more interconnected world, you are called to be builders of peace: to confront intolerance, overcome violence and banish exclusion, illuminating the path toward justice and concord for all, through the witness of your faith.

Dear brothers and sisters, on 25 March each year, celebrated as a national holiday in your country, you come together to venerate Mary, Our Lady of Lebanon, honored in her sanctuary at Harissa, which is adorned with an impressive statue of the Virgin with outstretched arms, embracing all the Lebanese people. May this loving and maternal embrace of the Virgin Mary, Mother of Jesus and Queen of Peace, guide each of you, so that in your homeland, across the Middle East and throughout the world, the gift of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence may flow forth “like the streams flowing from Lebanon” (cf. Song 4:15). May they bring hope and unity to all. Shukran. (Anti-Apostolic Journey to Lebanon: Ecumenical and Interreligious Meeting in Beirut's Martyrs’ Square 1 December 2025.)

While it is certainly true that that Christians have lived as minorities in overwhelmingly Mohammedan nations in the Middle East, the “coexistence” about which Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV has not been very peaceful at times, and this is precisely because despite the false “pope’s invocations of Our Lady of Lebanon, there can be never be true peace in the Middle East or anywhere else unless all men are united the bond of the true Faith. All other forms of peace are illusory and unstable as Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ Himself told us that all men must exclaim Him, the one and one Prince of Peace, as follows:

At that time, Jesus said to the Scribes and Pharisees, Therefore, behold, I send you prophets, and wise men, and scribes; and some you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from town to town; that upon you may come all the just blood that has been shed on the earth, from the blood of Abel the just unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar. Amen I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation. Jerusalem, Jerusalem! you who kill the prophets, and stone those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together, as a hen gathers her young under her wings, but you would not! Behold, your house is left to you desolate. For I say to you, you shall not see Me henceforth until you shall say, Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord! (Matthew 23:34-39.)

There will never be peace in the Middle East until everyone in that region converts to the Catholic Faith and say in unison, “Blessed is He Who comes in the name of the Lord!”

(A person who recommended that I appear on Crossfire in 1987 to discuss an outbreak of Palestinian-Israeli violence then was incredulous--perhaps "mortified" is a better word—when I said that I would say just that, that everyone involved had to convert to the Catholic Church, in a live appearance on television. Guess what? I did not appear on Crossfire.)

Every single bit of the Holy Land, including Jerusalem, was sanctified by the Incarnation, Nativity, Hidden Life, Public Life and Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Divine Redeemer, Christ the King.

It is precisely because the conciliar revolutionaries speak in Judeo-Masonic terms about “peace” through “dialogue” that those who deny the Sacred Divinity of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ continue to engage in acts of violence against Christians. As I have noted so very many times before, those whose souls are steeped are held captive to the devil by means of Original Sin have no basis to see in others the Divine impress and, as we have seen very clearly through history and especially in recent years, the Talmudic hatred for Christianity in general and for Christians have been exploited by those in the Israeli government to justify direct attacks upon Christian landowners on the West Bank and upon Christian churches and shrines in Gaza.

Similarly, even though Pietro The Red Parolin continues to downplay the simple fact that violence is part of the very fabric of Mohammedanism, which why he has been, as per usual, as unable to condemn the Mohammedan genocide against Christians in Nigerian as he continues to be unable to admit that the conciliar Vatican’s secret agreement with the Chinese Patriotic Catholic Association in Red China has emboldened the Chicoms to imprison, torture, and execute faithful Catholics in the underground:

The board chair of a Nigerian human rights organization, during an interview last week with Crux, slammed Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin for downplaying the role of Islam in the brutal genocide against the country’s Christians and said that he is encouraging further acts of Islamic terrorism against the faithful.

During the interview, which was published on November 27, Emeka Umeagbalasi, the board chair of the International Society for Civil Liberties and the Rule of Law (Intersociety) emphasized that Parolin’s comments diminishing the role of Islam in the genocide of Nigerian Christians provides diplomatic cover for Islamic terrorists, weakens the Church’s moral standing, and ultimately emboldens Islamic terrorists to continue committing genocide.

Parolin came under fire in October for downplaying the influence that Islam has played in the persecution, framing the violence against Nigerian Christians as a “social conflict,” not a “religious one,” during a Vatican event that focused on the recently published 2025 Religious Freedom Report by Aid to the Church in Need (ACN). The ACN surveyed 196 countries for its report and found that just under two-thirds of the world’s population lives in countries with “serious or very serious violations of religious freedom.”

Twenty-four countries, including Nigeria, were placed in the “worst” category in the report: persecution. The report notes that “organized crime is a key driver of persecution or discrimination” in Nigeria. It also found that persecution in Nigeria “results from a combination of authoritarian governance and religious extremism.”

“When the Vatican Secretary of State frames the crisis as a ‘social conflict’ rather than religious persecution, it demoralizes Catholic faithful and other Christians worldwide who look to the Church for leadership and support,” Umeagbalasi told Crux. “This diplomatic framing undermines the gravity of the situation and provides cover for those perpetrating the violence.”

Umeagbalasi underscored that Parolin’s comments diluting Christian persecution not only weaken its historical moral authority but also embolden Islamists to continue these vicious attacks.

“The Catholic Church has historically been a beacon of hope and moral authority. When its representatives appear to contradict or dilute clear statements about persecution, it weakens the Church’s moral standing and emboldens those who would continue the violence,” he said.

“By minimizing the religious nature of the conflict, the Secretary of State’s position contradicts not only the pope’s statements but also Nigeria’s own constitutional and international obligations to protect religious freedom,” he added.

To Parolin’s point that Muslims are also killed by extremists in Nigeria, Umeagbalasi stressed that Nigerian Christians are far more likely to face violent persecution than their Islamic fellow citizens, who he noted are typically killed by other Muslims, not “Christian jihadists.”

“While it’s true that Muslims are also killed in Nigeria, this doesn’t negate the targeted nature of Christian persecution,” he said. “Statistics show that for every ten people killed for religious reasons in Nigeria, approximately seven are Christians and three are Muslims. Muslims are typically killed by other Muslims in states with overwhelming Muslim populations like Zamfara, Sokoto, and Kastina—not by Christian jihadists.”

As previously reported by LifeSite, Christians in Nigeria have faced sporadic persecution since the 1950s, but since 2000 have seen wave after wave of violence that has steadily become a genocide. Persecution of Christians in Nigeria began to spike after 1999, when 12 northern states adopted Sharia law. The rise of the terrorist group Boko Haram in 2009 marked a dramatic escalation in attacks. Famously, the group kidnapped hundreds of schoolgirls in 2014; 87 of them are still listed as “missing.”

Recent attacks in Nigeria have included the abduction and even murder of Catholic priests and seminarians. In a July press release, the Diocese of Auchi in Edo State reported that several gunmen attacked the Immaculate Conception Minor Seminary, killing one security guard and kidnapping three seminarians.

In August, Islamic militants attacked a Christian village, killing three and injuring several more, just two months after Islamists massacred over 200 people in the same area. The assault targeted a community that was nearly 100 percent Christian and consisted mostly of subsistence farmers.

Findings published by the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) highlight many of the state-sponsored attacks on Christians in the country. In its 2025 report, the USCIRF urged the U.S. government to designate Nigeria as a “country of particular concern.” It also noted that “the Nigerian government remains slow or, at times, appears unwilling to respond to this violence, creating an environment of impunity for the attackers.”

Earlier in the interview, Umeagbalasi noted that Parolin’s remarks are also problematic because they mirror the Nigerian government’s narrative, which has long denied that its Christian population is being targeted specifically for their faith.

“(T)he Secretary of State’s position is problematic because it mirrors the Nigerian government’s narrative,” he said. “It’s concerning that he would involve himself in discussions about the situation in Nigeria, potentially aligning with what appears to be a defensive narrative promoted by the Nigerian federal government.”

Parolin’s comments had previously received similar pushback from several notable Catholic figures.

Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, who had served as apostolic nuncio to Nigeria from 1992 until 1998, denounced Parolin’s remarks as yet another sign of the hierarchy betraying faithful Catholics.

“The shameful words of Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin on the alleged ‘social conflict’ in Nigeria misrepresent the reality of a ferocious and genocidal persecution against Catholics, martyred while Rome rambles on about synodality and inclusiveness,” His Excellency remarked.

Archbishop Viganò continued:

“No, Your Eminence: Nigerian Catholics are being killed in hatred of the Faith they profess, by Muslims and in obedience to the Koran. Those same Muslims who are transforming your churches into mosques, with your cowardly and courtesan complicity, and who will soon overthrow governments to impose Sharia law on the ‘infidels.’” (Nigerian human rights advocate: Cardinal Parolin is ‘emboldening’ Muslim attacks against Christians.)

Although Archbishop Carlo Maria Vigano continues to believe that the conciliar revolutionaries are acting as officials of the Catholic Church and not its counterfeit ape, he is entirely correct that Nigerian Catholics are being killed by Muslims who hate the Faith and in full obedience to their blasphemous Koran, which Robert Francis Prevost referred to in the ecumenical address cited at the beginning of this commentary as “sacred.”

The conciliar refusal to believe, no less state firmly, that Mohammedanism is violent of its very false and blasphemous nature is why Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV cannot admit that the Mohammedan invasion of Europe by means of legal and illegal immigration is not the same thing as the “coexistence” that has existed in the Middle East over the centuries. Christians are in the minority of predominantly Mohammedan countries in the Middle East and Holy Mother Church has long sought their ability to practice the Holy Faith unmolested by the religious and civil authorities.

The Mohammedans who have been invading Europe in the past thirty to forty years want to supplant the few remnants of Catholicism that have not already been uprooted by Eurosocialists, who continue to do everything possible to permit Mohammedans the widest possible latitude in the observance of their false religion, up to and including the use of Sharia Law in some instances in the United Kingdom, and to turn a blind eye to violent crimes against persons and property by underreporting crimes committed by Mohammedans, thus creating the false perception that the number of such crimes have been “exaggerated” by xenophobic “hates” who are opposed to migration.

Indeed, Prevost/Leo himself implied that it is xenophobia that has inspired opposition to the presence of large numbers of Mohammedans in Europe during in an answer to a question posed to him during yesterday’s press conference onboard the antipapal flight from Beirut, Lebanon, to Rome:

Often, fear of Muslims in the West is "generated by people who are against immigration and are trying to keep out people who may be from another country, another religion, another race," he said. "In that sense, I would say that we all need to work together." (Prevost tells reporters dialogue is always the answer to tense situations.)

This is so facile as to defy comprehension.

It would appear that “Pope Leo” pays no more attention to the reality of Mohammedan violence and to its Christophobic nature as he does to the incidents of violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants/asylum seekers here in the United States of America.

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV does not think that it is necessary for nations to be united by the ties of the true Faith, to say nothing of linguistic and cultural unity, as the conciliar worldview rejects the immutable Catholic teaching that all men must submit themselves in humility and docility to the entirety of the Sacred Deposit of Faith that Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has revealed exclusively to His true Church for Its infallible explication and eternal safekeeping.

Moreover, the conciliar “popes” and many of their “bishops” welcomed Mohammedans for “returning God to Europe” even Mohammedans, along with Talmudists, of course, do not believe in the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Most Blessed Trinty made man in the Virginal and Immaculate Womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

For example, the late Jean-Louis Tauran said the following eighteen years ago while welcoming the “benefits” of the hordes of Mohammedans who have taken full advantage of Europe’s collective demographic suicide by means of contraception, sterilization, abortion, and, in recent decades, the public celebration, protection, and promotion of the sin of Sodom and its various mutations as a matter of human “rights” and public policy:

A senior Vatican cardinal has thanked Muslims for bringing God back into the public sphere in Europe and said believers of different faiths had no option but to engage in interreligious dialogue.

Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, head of the Catholic Church’s department for interfaith contacts, said religion was now talked and written about more than ever before in today’s Europe.

“It’s thanks to the Muslims,” he said in a speech printed in Friday’s L’Osservatore Romano, the official daily of the Vatican. “Muslims, having become a significant minority in Europe, were the ones who demanded space for God in society.”

Vatican officials have long bemoaned the secularisation of Europe, where church attendance has dwindled dramatically in recent decades, and urged a return to its historically Christian roots. But Tauran said no society had only one faith.

“We live in multicultural and multireligious societies, that’s obvious,” he told a meeting of Catholic theologians in Naples. “There is no civilisation that is religiously pure.”

Tauran’s positive speech on interfaith dialogue came after a remark by Pope Benedict prompted media speculation that the Vatican was losing interest in it. Some Jewish leaders reacted with expressions of concern and the Vatican denied any change.

The “return of God” is clearly seen in Tauran’s native France, where Europe’s largest Muslim minority has brought faith questions such as women’s headscarves into the political debate after decades when they were considered strictly private issues.

“GOD IS AT WORK IN ALL”

Tauran said religions were “condemned to dialogue,” a practice he called “the search for understanding between two subjects, with the help of reason, in view of a common interpretation of their agreement and disagreement.”

That seemed to clarify Benedict’s statement on Sunday that interfaith dialogue was “not possible in the strict sense of the word”. Church officials said a strict definition would include the option that one side is ultimately convinced by the other.

Dialogue participants could not give up their religious convictions, Tauran said, but should be open to learning about the positive aspects of each others’ faith.

“Every religion has its own identity, but I agree to consider that God is at work in all, in the souls of those who search for him sincerely,” he said. “Interreligious dialogue rallies all who are on the path to God or to the Absolute.”

The uncertainty about the Vatican view coincided with increasing contacts among world religions.

Early this month, the Vatican held a pioneering conference with a delegation from the “Common Word” group of Muslim scholars who invited Christian churches to a new dialogue.

A week later, Saudi King Abdullah gathered world leaders at the United Nations as part of a dialogue he launched with a conference of faith leaders in Madrid last July.

Christianity and Islam are the world’s two largest faiths, with two billion and 1.3 billion followers respectively. The latest interfaith efforts are meant to counter growing tensions between these two after the Sept. 11 attacks.

An Indian prelate, speaking after the Mumbai attacks began, said in Rome that a lack of courage to meet across faith lines was often behind religious violence in his country.

Archbishop Felix Machado of Nashik diocese, just east of Mumbai, told Italian priests the violence was caused by “inequality, a lack of justice and understanding and, above all, a lack of courage to dialogue,” the Vatican daily reported. (Vatican thanks Muslims for returning God to Europe.)

False religions belong to the devil, and anyone who does not recognize this has been condemned by binding precepts of the First Commandment in favor of a Judeo-Masonic spirit of religious egalitarianism was that denounced firmly by Pope Leo XIII in Custodi di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892:

Everyone should avoid familiarity or friendship with anyone suspected of belonging to masonry or to affiliated groups. Know them by their fruits and avoid them. Every familiarity should be avoided, not only with those impious libertines who openly promote the character of the sect, but also with those who hide under the mask of universal tolerance, respect for all religions, and the craving to reconcile the maxims of the Gospel with those of the revolution. These men seek to reconcile Christ and Belial, the Church of God and the state without God. (Pope Leo XIII, Custodi Di Quella Fede, December 8, 1892.)

This point has been made so many times before on this website that it might seem superfluous and redundant to do so again, but I believe the more that error is repeated the more that truth must be advanced and defended.

The author of the New York Post article went on to note that the father of what he thinks is the Catholic Church’s benign view of Mohammedanism is Louis Massignon, a Frenchman who believed it was his mission to unite the "Abrahamic religions.” Massignon worked for a “reconciliation” with Mohammedanism about the same time as Marc Sagnier’s Sillon was condemned by Pope Saint Pius X in Notre Charge Apostolique, August 15, 1910, for its efforts to “reconcile” Catholicism with the anti-Theistic principles of the French Revolution:

Leo’s comments express more than blissful sentimentality. They reveal the Vatican’s role in encouraging open borders and exempting migrants from accountability.

In Europe’s case, that involves deliberate blindness to the violent, totalitarian nature of Islam and many of its followers.

This Catholic approach toward Islam reflects the ideas of Louis Massignon, a French scholar from the early 20th century. Massignon described Islam as “the faith of Abraham revived with Muhammad,” and asserted that Muslims “have the right to equality among the monotheisms descended from Abraham.”

French Catholic scholar Alain Besançon described the results.

“An entire literature favorable to Islam has grown up in Europe, much of it the work of Catholic priests under the sway of Massignon’s ideas,” he wrote.

Besançon attributed that posture to “an underlying dissatisfaction with modernity, and with our liberal, capitalist, individualistic arrangements,” a dissatisfaction that the Vatican embodies.

“Alarmed by the ebbing of religious faith in the Christian West, and particularly in Europe,” Massignon’s advocates “cannot but admire Muslim devoutness,” Besançon wrote.

“Surely, they reason, it is better to believe in something than to believe in nothing, and since these Muslims believe in something, they must believe in the same thing we do.”

The Catholic Church officially embraced Massignon’s ideas at the Second Vatican Council in two documents. One, Nostra Aetate, focused on the church’s relationship with Judaism but additionally addressed Islam:

“The Church regards with esteem the Muslims. They adore the one God . . . they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet.”

The other, Lumen Gentium, declared that “the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place among these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God.”

That passage made the Catholic catechism.

But what Besançon called “indulgent ecumenicism” toward Islam goes beyond words. During John Paul II’s papacy, the church embraced outright appeasement.

Catholic bishops sold underutilized churches and schools to Muslim groups; many of the churches became mosques.

In October 2006, the Capuchin Franciscan friars agreed to help the Union of Islamic Communities and Organizations in Italy (UCOII) build a mosque in Genoa next to a monastery. The friars even helped build the mosque’s foundation.

But the UCOII — affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood — advocates “an extremist version of the Quran, where Christians, Jews and Westerners are criminalized, as well as women and other Muslims who don’t submit to their rule,” Magdi Allam, a convert to Catholicism from Islam, reported for Milan’s Corriere della Sera.

In 2006, the group also demanded Islamic schools, banks and clerical review of textbooks. Its president, Mohamed Nour Dachan, refused to sign a document pledging Muslims to accept Italy’s constitution, denounce terrorism and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Seven months earlier, a Vatican cardinal even suggested that Muslim students receive Islamic religious instruction in the hour reserved for Catholic instruction in Italian schools.

“If there are 100 Muslim children in a school, I don’t see why they shouldn’t be taught their religion,” said the late Cardinal Renato Martino, then the president of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. “If we said ‘no’ until we saw equivalent treatment for the Christian minorities in Muslim countries, I would say that we were placing ourselves on their level.”

In 2008, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales asked Catholic schools to reserve prayer rooms for Muslim students and to adapt bathroom facilities for ritual cleansing before prayer. But the worst example of appeasement took place in Belgium.

As part of a campaign to force the government to grant amnesty, Belgium’s Catholic bishops turned their churches into homes for Muslim migrants, making them squatters.

In May 2006, more than 30 Belgian churches served such a purpose. About 300 Africans occupied Antwerp’s Magdalena Chapel. Other churches held as many as 700 squatters.

At Our Lady of Succor Church in Brussels, squatters lived in small tents donated by Catholic relief agencies, conducted Muslim services, erected computer tables near the pulpit and even set fires on the floor.

Friar Herwig Arts described a scene at Antwerp’s Jesuit chapel: migrants “removed the tabernacle [and] installed a television set and radios, depriving us of the opportunity to pray in our own chapel and say Mass.”

He went on, “For me, the place has been desecrated. I feel I cannot enter it anymore.”

Belgium’s bishops were not amused. Arts was chided by Belgium’s leading clergy. “Solidarity cannot be limited to one’s own nation, said the late Cardinal Godfried Danneels, then the country’s leading prelate. Monsingor Luc van Looy, then the bishop of Ghent, even said “illegal fugitives” were “entitled to a good place in our society. Arts has been silent on the topic ever since.

But two decades later, Kazakhstan’s Bishop Schneider refuses to stay silent: “This is a global political agenda by the powerful of the world to destroy Europe.”

Leo thus faces an existential challenge, one that blissful sentimentality cannot answer: Will he allow a church that played a pivotal role in creating European civilization to perform a more decisive part in destroying it? (Pope Leo must stand up to Muslim immigrants seeking to remake Europe.)

It is utter fantasy to think that any conciliar “pope” is going to “stand up” to Mohammedan immigrants nor to denounce the use of “sharia law” in the courts of one formerly Catholic country another, including Austria most recently:

VIENNA (LifeSiteNews) — A court in Vienna has ruled that Sharia law may be applied in civil legal disputes between two parties in Austria.

The Vienna Regional Court for Civil Matters was concerned with a case between two Muslim men who had previously agreed to be judged by Islamic law in case of dispute.

This means that in the event of a dispute, the arbitration court – which rules according to Islamic law – can be convened. The dispute occurred, and the court ruled against one of the men and ordered him to pay a €320,000 ($372,000) fine.

However, the man sentenced to pay the penalty did not accept the ruling. He argued that the application of the law was arbitrary, as Sharia law could be interpreted in different ways. He furthermore claimed that invoking Sharia law violated the fundamental values of Austrian law.

The Vienna Regional Court ruled that the arbitration tribunal’s decision was valid. The court argued that the ruling did not contradict Austria’s fundamental values.

Islamic legal provisions, the regional court emphasized, could be “effectively agreed upon in an arbitration agreement” for property claims.

“There are no indications of a violation of public order or a possible arbitrary decision in this case, which is why none of the grounds for annulment that must be examined ex officio are present,” the court stated.

Conservative politicians and activists expressed their concern and outrage regarding the controversial decision.

Michael Schilchegger, constitutional spokesman for the Freedom Party (FPÖ), said the ruling fosters “Islamic parallel societies” and a weakens those “forces that do not want to submit to Islam.”

“If Austrian courts now also recognize arbitration awards based on ‘Sharia law,’ they are submitting to the will of fanatical Islamists,” he warned. He announced future legislative proposals to make it impossible for Austrian courts to recognize Sharia law in civil lawsuits.

Sharia law has “nothing to do with Austria and the principles of our constitution, and that’s how it should stay,” said Integration Minister Claudia Plakolm (ÖVP), who is part of Austria’s government coalition.

By the end of the year, the Ministry of Justice should draw up proposals “so that Sharia law cannot be applied in the future, for example in the area of civil marriage,” said Plakolm, who is confident “that we will receive the relevant proposals in a timely manner.”

Austrian anti-immigration activist and political commentator Martin Sellner said on X: “Under the guise of ‘private agreements,’ Sharia is entering the Austrian legal system.”

“Even though criminal aspects are excluded, this precedent opens the door to the gradual recognition of foreign legal systems,” he warned.

“For us, this means: remigration and the restoration of cultural sovereignty are more urgent than ever,” he concluded.

In recent years, uncontrolled mass migration has led to a significant increase in the Muslim population of Austria. According to a recent statistic, Islam is already the dominant religion in elementary and middle schools in Vienna. Approximately 41 percent of students in this age group are Muslim in Austria’s capital, while Christians only make up 34.5 percent (17.5 percent Catholic and 14.5 percent Orthodox).

Sharia law has also been recognized in other Western countries, such as the Canadian province of Ontario, where civil legal disputes may also be decided by Islamic law. (Vienna court says Sharia law may be used in civil disputes, sparking outrage.)

Yes, the Mohammedan migrants have brought great "hope" to Europe, haven't they?

No, of course not.

As noted earlier, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is as oblivious to acts of Mohammedan violence in Europe  (see, for example, Germany and Europe are once again 'Islamic State' targets) as was his venal predecessor, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, and he is as equally mute as the late Argentine Apostate about the sort of "hope" that illegal immigrants from Central and South America brought to the lives of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungarary, or scores of others slaughteerd by these "hearlds of hope." No, the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" have existed in a delusional world that is detached from the reality of the fact Mohammedanism is a religion of violence of its very perverse nature and that those of its adherents who commit violent acts are simply being faithful to their blasphemous "holy book," the Koran, and to the bloodthirsty example of their false prophet, Mohammed. 

Mohammedanism is not worthy of any kind of respect. Neither is its blasphemous book, the Koran, which is just as offensive to God as is every single Protestant version of the Bible, each of which is filled with distortions that do not represent but indeed pervert the Sacred Word of God that was written under the direct inspiration of the Third Person of the Most Blessed Trinity, God the Holy Ghost.

Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV is only doing what his predecessors who have sat in the conciliar seat of apostasy and betrayal have done before him.

All this is the logical result of the Protestant Revolution’s overthrow of the Social Reign of Christ the King five hundred years ago that made possible the rise and the triumph of the anti-Incarnational civil state of Judeo-Masonry that trumpets pluralism but is mean to lead to the intolerant totalitarianism of Antichrist himself.

Moreover, Mohammedans have received assistance from Talmudists on various occasions when it suited their purposes to destabilize Catholic kingdoms and/or to overthrow them entirely. As William Thomas Walsh noted, this was particularly the case on the Iberian Peninsula as Talmudists helped to bring the Saracens into Spain. Despite occasional persecutions launched by the latter against the former, the Saracens rewarded the Jews on many occasions: 

In medieval Spain the Jews came nearer to building a New Jerusalem than at any time or place since their dispersion after the Crucifixion. Had they succeeded – and several times they came perilously near success – they might conceivably have managed, with Mohammedan aid, to destroy the Christian civilization of Europe. Their ultimate failure was caused chiefly by the life work of Isabel. 

The date of their first migrations to the peninsula is disputed. But the evidence appears to indicate that they arrived not long after Saint James the Greater first preached the gospel of Christianity in Saragossa in 42 A. D. Some of those expelled from Rome by Claudius may have settled in Spain. Certain it is that they spread through the country very early in the Christian era, and multiplied so rapidly that their presence constituted a serious problem for the Arian (unorthodox Christian) Visigoths. They were not at first persecuted by the Christians; but after the discovery that they were plotting to bring the Arabs from Africa for the overthrow of the Gothic kingdom, they were condemned to slavery by one of the councils of Toledo. Nevertheless by the beginning of the eighth century they were numerous in all the chief cities, enjoyed power and wealth, and even obtained though bribery certain privileges denied to Christians.

That they played an important part in bringing the Saracens from Africa in 709 is certain. In the invading army there were many African Jews. Everywhere the Spanish Jews opened the gates of cities to the conquerors, and the Moslems rewarded them by turning over to them the government of Granada, Seville and Cordoba. “Without any love for the soil where lived, without any of those affections that ennoble a people, and finally withoput sentiments of generosity,” says Amador de los Rios, “they apired only to feed their avarice and to accomplish the ruin of the Goths; taking the opportunity to manifest their rancor, and boasting of the hatreds that they had hoarded up so many centuries.” This is a severe indictment and it would be most unfair to place all the blame for the Mussulmen invasion at the door of the Jews. Neither their intrigues not the Moorish arms could nave prevailed, perhaps, if the Christian Visigoth monarchy had not fallen first into heresy and then into decadence. King Witiza led an unsavory life, published an edict permitting priests to marry, and so far flouted the Christian beliefs of his subjects that he denied the authority of the Pope. His successor, Roderigo, violated the daughter of Count Julian, who thereupon crossed into Africa and joined the Jews in prevailing upon the Moors to conquer Spain. The sons of Witiza, persecuted by Roderigo, also joined the enemy. And at the critical moment of the battle of Jerez de la Frontery, Bishop Oppas, who had a grudge against Roderigo, went over to the Saracens and gave them the victory.

In the new Moslem state the Jews found themselves highly esteemed. It was under the caliphs that they attained the height of their prosperity. They studied and taught in the Arab universities excelling particularly in astrology and medicine. Through their connection with Asiatic Jews, they were able to get the best drugs and spices; and through their wealth, acquired chiefly through usury, barter and the huge traffic in slaves, they obtained leisure for the pursuit and diffusion of culture. They expounded the philosophy of Aristotle, which flourished among the Arabs, before the Stagirite was known in Christian Europe.

In Granada the Jews became so numerous that is was called “the city of the Jews.” But Saracens persecuted them at times, On December 30, 1066, the Moslems of Granada, infuriated by their exploitations, arose against them and slew 4,000. One of the caliphs expelled all Jews from Granada.

The gradual reconquest of the peninsula by the Christians did not at first trouble their marvelous prosperity. When Saint Fernando took Seville in 1224, he gave the Jews four Moorish mosques to convert into synagogues; he allowed them one of the pleasantest sections for their homes, and imposed to conditions except to refrain from proselytising among Christians and from insulting the Christian religion. The Jews observed neither of these conditions. Yet several of the later kings, usually those of lukewarm faith or those especially in need of money, showed them high favor. Alfonso VIII made one of them his treasurer.  (William Thomas Walsh, Isabella of Spain: The Last Crusader, published originally by Robert McBride and Company in 1930 and republished by TAN Books and Publishers in 1987, pp. 195-197.)

One must understand that, despite all the times they attack each other, Mohammedans and Talmudists are but tools of the adversary who have a fundamentally abiding hatred for Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and to this end that they seek, sometimes in different ways but sometimes jointly sub rosa. The souls of the unbaptized are captive to the devil by means of Original Sin, which enshrouds them in blindness and, together with their own Actual Sins, inspires them to hate Our Lord, His Holy Church and, in all too many cases, even truth on the merely natural level.

Mohammedanism is a false, blasphemous religion that has no right from God to exist. It is based on a rejection of the Most Holy Trinity and was founder by a pederast who wanted to justify his own deviancy, including polygamy, in the name of a false god, who he believed demanded the extermination of infidels.

Sure, Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV sometimes gives speeches that are thoroughly Catholic, especially when he addressed young people in Lebanon on Saturday, November 29, 2025, the Vigil of Saint Andrew, but this does not make him a Catholic as Modernists sometimes speak in completely Catholic terms while they promote textbook Modernism most of the other times. Pope Saint Pius X spoke about this doublemindedness as follows in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, September 8, 1907:

18. This will appear more clearly to anybody who studies the conduct of Modernists, which is in perfect harmony with their teachings. In their writings and addresses they seem not unfrequently to advocate doctrines which are contrary one to the other, so that one would be disposed to regard their attitude as double and doubtful. But this is done deliberately and advisedly, and the reason of it is to be found in their opinion as to the mutual separation of science and faith. Thus in their books one finds some things which might well be approved by a Catholic, but on turning over the page one is confronted by other things which might well have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they are dealing with history they take no account of the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully. In the same way they draw their distinctions between exegesis which is theological and pastoral and exegesis which is scientific and historical. So, too, when they treat of philosophy, history, and criticism, acting on the principle that science in no way depends upon faith, they feel no especial horror in treading in the footsteps of Luther and are wont to display a manifold contempt for Catholic doctrines, for the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be taken to task for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty. Lastly, maintaining the theory that faith must be subject to science, they continuously and openly rebuke the Church on the ground that she resolutely refuses to submit and accommodate her dogmas to the opinions of philosophy; while they, on their side, having for this purpose blotted out the old theology, endeavor to introduce a new theology which shall support the aberrations of philosophers. (Pope Saint Pius X, Pascendi Dominci Gregis, September 8, 1907.)

No, no matter how many times “Pope Leo” may sound like a Catholic, he is a thorough son and promoter of the conciliar revolution, something that will be on full display once again in just a few days as he celebrates conciliarism’s “reconciliation with the world” on the sixtieth anniversaries of the issuance of Gaudium et Spes and Dignitatis Humanae (December 7, 1965).

The appendix below contains a reminder of the fact that anyone who defects from the Holy Faith in one thing defects from It in Its entirety. Please keep this in mind when you might be tempted to think that Robert Francis Prevost/Leo XIV’s glimmers of Catholicism mean more than they do.

Remember, Saint Francis Xavier, S.J., whose feast we celebrate today, Wednesday, December 3, 2025, worked to convert infidels of all stripes. He did not respect their false symbols and rejoiced when his converts destroyed pagan idols. It cannot be that this was right in Saint Francis Xavier’s time and wrong today as the holy example of Saint Francis Xavier showed forth a genuine commitment to love God by seeking the conversion of all men everywhere to the true Faith, outside of which there is no salvation and without which there can be no true social order within nations nor a just peace among them.

Continue to beg Our Lady through her Most Holy Rosary to remain steadfast in the Catholic Faith without compromise as we beg her also to help others to come to the realization that the counterfeit church of conciliarism has not been, is not now, nor can ever be the Catholic Church.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint John the Evangelist, pray for us.

Saint Michael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us.

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Saint Francis Xavier, S.J., pray for us.

Saint Ignatius Loyola, S.J., pray for us.

Appendix

Either the Faith is Held Entirely, or It is Not Held at All

Someone may say: Do the heretics not believe in Christ? And what else do they proclaim but the gospel? Therefore why do they not lay their foundation on Rock? All heretics, brethren, think that they are laying their foundation on Christ, but they are very much mistaken. In their opinion they are laying their foundation on Christ, but actually they are placing it on sand. Pay careful attention, please, to what I am saying: there are two rocks on which we must place our buildings: the first one is Christ, the second is Peter. The Apostle says about the first No other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. About the second the Lord says,  And I will tell you, you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church. But if if no other foundation can any one lay,  how can we place Peter as another foundation? I will tell you, brethren: we do not make Christ and Peter foundations to an equal degree, but we place Christ as the first stone, and then we place Peter on top of this stone. Therefore Christ is not supported by Peter, but Peter is supported by Christ as part of the foundation. Therefore the first foundation, and the one which does not rest on another foundation, is Christ alone, so the Apostle says about him: No other foundation, that is, the first one, can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Now, if you please, we will explain briefly how both Christ and Peter are the foundations. Therefore Christ is the first and preeminent foundation of our faith, because we believe that all those things are true, which Christ, which the wisdom of God as the first truth who cannot lie, has revealed to us either through the Scriptures or in some other way. We believe that our God is one and triune; we believe that all of us will be raised from the dead on the last day. Why do we believe these things? Because Peter, because Paul, because John taught these things? Not at all. Why therefore? Because the first truth, namely God, in whom there cannot be a lie, has deigned to reveal these things. Therefore our faith is based on Christ, who is the truth, as on the most solid foundation. And up to this point, brothers, we do not disagree with the heretic, since they openly affirm that whatever Christ said must be believed absolutely. And if nothing else were required, no heretic would be found. Therefore, what is it that makes a heretic? Where is the disagreement to be found? What is called in question? Actually it is this: What is it that Christ revealed without any doubt? For they contend that many things were revealed by Christ, the first truth, which we say were revealed by the father of lies. On the other hand, they think that many things are fictional creations, the author of which we acknowledge to be God himself. Therefore, who will be the judge? Did Christ, the wisdom of God, leave no one in the Church to whom we can go to resolve doubtful matters? Certainly he did leave someone. For otherwise what kind of a community would we have? Therefore, who is he? All the heretics will complain, but it is no one other than Peter. For he established him as his vicar, and after himself he made him the rock and foundation of the Church. To him alone he said: I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren. He said to him Feed my lambs; feed my sheep, that is, you are the one who must feed mothers, and sons, and bishops, and the people with the doctrine and word of truth. We believe whatever Christ deigned to reveal; but what Christ reveals or did reveal we learn from Peter and his successors, who sit in the same chair as he did. Therefore, since all the heretics disdain to build on this second rock, and since they refuse to learn from Peter and his successors, and produce dogmas of faith for themselves out of their own heads, why is it surprising if they are totally in error and are building on sand, when they believe they are building on Christ? And these statements about the foundation of the house could be sufficient, unless some had to be warned by me, whom I understand have fallen into the greatest error.

There are some person, dear listeners, who hold almost everything with a firm faith that Catholics hold: but there is one thing or another, which they have not yet been able to accept completely, such as that purgatory exists, that sacred images are to be venerated, that the sovereign Pontiff is the vicar of Christ and the head of the whole Church. And since there are many things that they believe, and only one or two things that they do not believe and consider it is not important if taken together with the other articles, they think they are situated very well on the foundation of Christ. What is the difference, they say, even if I err in that one thing, which I still cannot believe, and at the judgment will the Lord be concerned about that? And will he not be mindful of the many difficult things I believe? Indeed, this is the way in which they flatter themselves; I serious rebuke them and say that they have fallen from grace and have laid their foundation on sand, and will have no part with Christ. Either the faith is had completely, or it is not had at all. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. I ask you (to clarify the matter with a crass example), when you order a pair of shoes from a shoemaker, if when they are finally made you find they are an inch shorter than your feet, do you not put them on and wear them? Your will say “I cannot wear them” But they are only an inch too short, so why can't you wear them, since they are just a little bit short of the right measurement? As, therefore, your shoes are either the right size for your feet or they have no value at all, so also the faith is either integral, or it is not the faith. Therefore no one should deceive himself. If we want to build a house which cannot be moved by wind or rain, we must lay the foundation of both rocks, that is, on Christ and Peter. (Sermons of St. Robert Bellarmine, S.J., Part II: Sermons 30-55, Including the Four Last Things and the Annunciation., translated from the Latin by Father Kenneth Baker, S.J., and published in 2017 by Keep the Faith, Inc., Ramsey, New Jersey, pp. 152-154.)

With reference to its object, faith cannot be greater for some truths than for others. Nor can it be less with regard to the number of truths to be believed. For we must all believe the very same thing, both as to the object of faith as well as to the number of truths. All are equal in this because everyone must believe all the truths of faith--both those which God Himself has directly revealed, as well as those he has revealed through His Church. Thus, I must believe as much as you and you as much as I, and all other Christians similarly. He who does not believe all these mysteries is not Catholic and therefore will never enter Paradise. (Saint Francis de Sales, The Sermons of Saint Francis de Sales for Lent Given in 1622, republished by TAN Books and Publishers for the Visitation Monastery of Frederick, Maryland, in 1987, pp. 34-37.)

8. We are mindful only of what is witnessed to by Holy Writ and what is otherwise well known. Christ proves His own divinity and the divine origin of His mission by miracles; He teaches the multitudes heavenly doctrine by word of mouth; and He absolutely commands that the assent of faith should be given to His teaching, promising eternal rewards to those who believe and eternal punishment to those who do not. “If I do not the works of my Father, believe Me not” John x., 37). “If I had not done among them the works than no other man had done, they would not have sin” (Ibid. xv., 24). “But if I do (the works) though you will not believe Me, believe the works” (Ibid. x., 38). Whatsoever He commands, He commands by the same authority. He requires the assent of the mind to all truths without exception. It was thus the duty of all who heard Jesus Christ, if they wished for eternal salvation, not merely to accept His doctrine as a whole, but to assent with their entire mind to all and every point of it, since it is unlawful to withhold faith from God even in regard to one single point. (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

The Church, founded on these principles and mindful of her office, has done nothing with greater zeal and endeavour than she has displayed in guarding the integrity of the faith. Hence she regarded as rebels and expelled from the ranks of her children all who held beliefs on any point of doctrine different from her own. The Arians, the Montanists, the Novatians, the Quartodecimans, the Eutychians, did not certainly reject all Catholic doctrine:they abandoned only a certain portion of it. Still who does not know that they were declared heretics and banished from the bosom of the Church? In like manner were condemned all authors of heretical tenets who followed them in subsequent ages. "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" (Auctor Tract. de Fide Orthodoxa contra Arianos).

The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88). (Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, June 29, 1896.)

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: ‘This is the Catholic Faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved’ (Athanasian Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim ‘Christian is my name and Catholic my surname,’ only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself.

Besides, the Church demands from those who have devoted themselves to furthering her interests, something very different from the dwelling upon profitless questions; she demands that they should devote the whole of their energy to preserve the faith intact and unsullied by any breath of error, and follow most closely him whom Christ has appointed to be the guardian and interpreter of the truth. There are to be found today, and in no small numbers, men, of whom the Apostle says that: "having itching ears, they will not endure sound doctrine: but according to their own desires they will heap up to themselves teachers, and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables" (II Tim. iv. 34). Infatuated and carried away by a lofty idea of the human intellect, by which God's good gift has certainly made incredible progress in the study of nature, confident in their own judgment, and contemptuous of the authority of the Church, they have reached such a degree of rashness as not to hesitate to measure by the standard of their own mind even the hidden things of God and all that God has revealed to men. Hence arose the monstrous errors of "Modernism," which Our Predecessor rightly declared to be "the synthesis of all heresies," and solemnly condemned. We hereby renew that condemnation in all its fulness, Venerable Brethren, and as the plague is not yet entirely stamped out, but lurks here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully here and there in hidden places, We exhort all to be carefully on their guard against any contagion of the evil, to which we may apply the words Job used in other circumstances: "It is a fire that devoureth even to destruction, and rooteth up all things that spring" (Job xxxi. 12). Nor do We merely desire that Catholics should shrink from the errors of Modernism, but also from the tendencies or what is called the spirit of Modernism. Those who are infected by that spirit develop a keen dislike for all that savours of antiquity and become eager searchers after novelties in everything: in the way in which they carry out religious functions, in the ruling of Catholic institutions, and even in private exercises of piety. Therefore it is Our will that the law of our forefathers should still be held sacred: "Let there be no innovation; keep to what has been handed down." In matters of faith that must be inviolably adhered to as the law; it may however also serve as a guide even in matters subject to change, but even in such cases the rule would hold: "Old things, but in a new way."  (Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, November 1, 1914.)