By Invitation Only
Thomas A. Droleskey
The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism sometimes grumble about the demands made upon them by their "partners" in "ecumenical dialogue." Not all is well in the land of false ecumenism as these lords of conciliarism forget that they invited the enemies of the Church to their ecumenical party and have only themselves to blame, therefore, for the insatiable appetite of their "partners in dialogue" to make the demands that they, the conciliar officials, come to resent, perhaps just a wee little bit, now and again.
This resentment has come to the surface recently as various representatives of the Talmud have petitioned Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI to "freeze" the conciliar "canonization" process of Pope Pius XII. One of these expressing such resentment was Father Peter Gumpel, the promoter of the conciliar cause for the late true pontiff's cause in the conciliar structures:
Gumpel said that Benedict "would like to go to Israel as soon as possible" but cannot do so until a caption to a picture of Pius XII, accusing him of remaining silent, in the Holocaust memorial at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, had been removed.
The caption was "an obvious falsification of history," Gumpel said.
As long as the caption remained, a trip to Israel by the pontiff would be "a scandal for Catholics," he said.
"The Catholic church does what it can to have good relations with Israel but friendly relations can only be built on reciprocity," he said.
"We see that the pope with a great sense of hospitality invited a rabbi to our (recent) synod and he abused our kindness by attacking on three occasions Pius XII," said Gumpel.
"Of course the rabbi can say what he wants but if he is our guest and he talks like that he doesn't help improve our relations.
(Ratzinger holds off Pius XII beatification)
The Talmudic rabbi to whom Father Gumpel was referring,
Shear-Yashuv Cohen, the grand rabbi of Haifa, spoke, albeit obliquely, against Pope Pius XII's conciliar "canonization" on October 6, 2008, as he was addressing the then-ongoing synod of conciliar "bishops." Who invited Cohen to address the synod? Yes, of course, Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI.
Father Gumpel's public reaction to the pressure that Shear-Yashuv Cohen tried to bring upon Ratzinger/Benedict not to proceed with Pope Pius XII's cause prompted the antipope's spokesman, Father Federico Lombardi, S.J., to call upon all parties, including Father Gumpel, to stop "pressuring" Ratzinger/Benedict:
"That [the decree of Pope Pius XII's heroic virtues] is the subject of study and reflection on (the pope's) part, and in this situation it is not appropriate to exercise pressure on him in one direction or the other," Father Lombardi said.
(Vatican: Stop pressuring Benedict Pope Pius XII's Beatification.)
Ten days after Father Lombardi's remarks were reported by the Catholic News Service, however, Ratzinger/Benedict met with a group of Talmudic representatives, including Rabbi David Rosen, the pro-abortion "papal knight" who
is the honorary President of the International Jewish Vegetarian and Ecology Society and the Chairman of International Jewish Committee on Interreligious Consultations. These representatives were requesting that the all of the records in the Vatican archives pertaining to Pope Pius XII pertaining to Pope Pius XII's work during World War II be opened up to scholars. One of their number, Seymour Reich, specifically asked that the "canonization" process be frozen until such a review was completed, claiming that Ratzinger/Benedict said that he was "seriously considering it," although there is some ambiguity as to whether Ratzinger/Benedict was referring to the process in general or to the specific request for a delay.
Alas, who gave these adherents of a false religion that is hated by God an opportunity to publicly pressure the putative "pontiff" on a matter pertaining to the internal workings of what purports to be the Catholic Church? That's right, none other than Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI, who lets a modern version of Sanhedrin make demands upon himself. Ratzinger/Benedict has no one else to blame but himself for giving the ancient enemies of Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ the time, the opportunity and the credibility to make such demands.
This little detail seems to be lost upon the lords of conciliarism as some of them express a bit of controlled rage over the demands made by the adherents of the Talmud concerning Pope Pius XII's "canonization." Once again, my friends, who has given these Talmudic representatives entree into what purports to be the Catholic Church? None other than the false "popes" of the counterfeit church of conciliarism, that's who. These enemies of God and His Holy Faith have been invited to make demands in order that ecumenical "dialogue" proceed to its logical conclusion: ecumenical surrender on the part of the counterfeit church of conciliarism.
Thus it is that the conciliar Vatican's Secretary of State, Tarcisio "Cardinal" Bertone, one of the three great enemies of the Third Secret of Fatima and of the entirety of Our Lady's Fatima Message, has expressed a bit of muted outrage about the pressure that the Talmudic Jews have attempted to bring to bear on Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI. Bertone, who appears to be positioning himself as a candidate for the next conciliar conclave, insisted in an address at the Jesuit-run Gregorianum University in Rome, Italy, on November 6, 2008 that the "canonization" process belongs exclusively to the conciliar church and to no one else:
Vatican City, Nov 7, 2008 / 01:17 pm (CNA).- On Thursday at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, gave a speech at a Congress on the 50th anniversary of the death of the Servant of God, Pius XII, and recalled that his cause for canonization is a religious act that demands respect from all and is the exclusive competence of the Holy See.
The cardinal pointed to “many signs” that indicate that the debate about the life and work of the late Pontiff is “increasingly more calm and balanced” and that the importance and greatness of his pontificate is more recognized, despite the controversies that have become “increasingly less understandable and above all have little to do with history.”
Cardinal Bertone noted that in Pius XII’s first encyclical, he denounced not only “the horrors of war but he also recalled the great works of charity that the Catholic Church carried out during the years of the conflict—charity that was dispensed to all without any distinction.”
“Proof of this,” he said, “are the more than three and a half million documents of the Vatican’s Office of Information about prisoners of war, which was instituted by Pius XII immediately after the war, as well as a section of Vatican archives up to the year of 1947 and that are available for research but are not used. Evidently some people only care about history if it can be used as a weapon,” the cardinal added.
The portrayal of Pius XII as indifferent to the victims of Nazism or as “Hitler’s Pope,” “besides being insulting, is above all unsustainable from an historical point of view, as is the image of a Pontiff subject to the Americans and ‘chaplain of the West,’ which was spread by the Soviets and their supporters in the European democracies during the Cold War.”
This was not a not-so-subtle invitation to the representatives of Talmudic associations to be quiet on this subject from hereon out. What the not-so-subtle outrage, however? Why? Who has given the representatives of false religions entree into the workings of the conciliar church? None other than the conciliar "popes."
Every once in a while, you see, one does get a little glimpse into the fact that some in the conciliar structures get a little impatience with all of the "nicey-nice" business of "ecumenical dialogue" and lose their patience, perhaps just a little bit, with their "partners" in ecumenical crime.
Indeed, the longtime spokesman for the late Karol Wojtyla/John Paul II, Dr. Joaquin Navarro-Valls, let down his own Spanish Catholic hair just a little bit when he was interviewed by a reporter for The New York Times about two conciliar priests who had gotten themselves tangled up with an insurance swindle in Connecticut nine years ago:
Mr. Navarro-Valls described Monsignor Colagiovanni, who as president of Monitor Ecclesiasticus edits a Vatican-approved canonical law quarterly and also runs its charitable arm, as a ''pensioner.'' Mr. Navarro-Valls said he knew nothing about Father Jacobs, but volunteered that he was an ''ex-Jew.''
Bishop Salerno also pointed out Father Jacobs's Jewish roots after the scandal surfaced. Surprisingly, neither he nor Mr. Navarro-Valls nor others mentioned the fact that Father Jacobs was formally rebuked by the Roman Catholic Church in 1983, after he ignored an archbishop's order to cease operating his New York restaurant, The Palantine. Father Jacobs's right to perform priestly duties was suspended at that time because he violated church rules about business transactions How 2 Priests Got Mixed Up In a Huge Insurance Scandal
Not very "ecumenical" of Dr. Navarro-Valls to "volunteer" that one of the priests involved in the insurance scandal, Father Peter Jacobs, was an "ex-Jew," now was it? This is the same Joaquin Navarro-Valls who jumped through hoops to justify the Pontifical Biblical Commission's
The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible (May 24, 2001), that a Jewish reading of the Bible was a "possible" one:
The new document also says Catholics must regard the Old Testament as ''retaining all of its value, not just as literature, but its moral value,'' said Joaquín Navarro-Valls, the pope's spokesman. ''You cannot say, 'Now that Jesus has come, it becomes a second-rate document.' ''
''The expectancy of the Messiah was in the Old Testament,'' he went on, ''and if the Old Testament keeps its value, then it keeps that as a value, too. It says you cannot just say all the Jews are wrong and we are right.''
Asked whether that could be taken to mean that the Messiah may or may not have come, Dr. Navarro-Valls said no. ''It means it would be wrong for a Catholic to wait for the Messiah, but not for a Jew,'' he said.
The document, the result of years of work by the Pontifical Biblical Commission, goes on to apologize for the fact that certain New Testament passages that criticize the Pharisees, for example, had been used to justify anti-Semitism.
Everything in the report is now considered part of official church doctrine, Dr. Navarro-Valls said. (Vatican Says Jews' Wait for Messiah Is Validated by the Old Testament.)
Ah, yes, no matter what private--and the very rare public--grumblings that the conciliarists have about their partners in ecumenical crime must give way when "official" documents are issued. The ecumenical show must, of course, go on. Never mind the fact that most Catholics graduating from schools in conciliar captivity know nothing about the Faith. Oh, no, everything must be sacrificed in behalf of maintaining the ecumenical "momentum, which leads, it should be pointed out, to only one place: Hell itself.
As if the invitations extended by the officials of the counterfeit church of conciliarism to the adherents of the blasphemous document known as the Talmud to participate in synods of "bishops" and the like were not enough, the conciliarists were busy most recently meeting with adherents of the blasphemous document known as the Koran to find some "common ground" in ecumenical "dialogue" between conciliarism and Mohammedanism. A statement of principles between the two parties was produced that should, emphasis on should, demonstrate to a few souls out there that we are face to face a loss of any sense of the Catholic Faith on the part of the conciliar officials:
ROME, NOV. 6, 2008 (Zenit.org).- Here is the final declaration of the first seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum, which concluded today in Rome.
* * *
The Catholic-Muslim Forum was formed by the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue and a delegation of the 138 Muslim signatories of the open letter called A Common Word, in the light of the same document and the response of His Holiness Benedict XVI through his Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone. Its first Seminar was held in Rome from 4-6 November 2008. Twenty-four participants and five advisors from each religion took part in the meeting. The theme of the Seminar was "Love of God, Love of Neighbour."
The discussion, conducted in a warm and convivial spirit, focused on two great themes: "Theological and Spiritual Foundations" and "Human Dignity and Mutual Respect." Points of similarity and of diversity emerged, reflecting the distinctive specific genius of the two religions.
1. For Christians the source and example of love of God and neighbour is the love of Christ for his Father, for humanity and for each person. "God is Love" (1 Jn 4, 16) and "God so loved the world that He gave his only Son so that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" (Jn 3,16). God's love is placed in the human heart through the Holy Spirit.
It is God who first loves us thereby enabling us to love Him in return. Love does not harm one's neighbour but rather seeks to do to the other what one would want done to oneself (Cf. 1 Cor 13, 4-7). Love is the foundation and sum of all the commandments (Cf. Gal 5, 14).
Love of neighbour cannot be separated from love of God, because it is an expression of our love for God. This is the new commandment, "Love one another as I have loved you." (Jn 15, 12) Grounded in Christ's sacrificial love, Christian love is forgiving and excludes no one; it therefore also includes one's enemies. It should be not just words but deeds (Cf. 1 Jn, 4, 18). This is the sign of its genuineness.
For Muslims, as set out in "A Common Word," love is a timeless transcendent power which guides and transforms human mutual regard.
This love, as indicated by the Holy and Beloved Prophet Muhammad, is prior to the human love for the One True God. A Hadith indicates that God's loving compassion for humanity is even greater than that of a mother for her child (Muslim, Bab al-Tawba: 21); it therefore exists before and independently of the human response to the One who is 'The Loving.' So immense is this love and compassion that God has intervened to guide and save humanity in a perfect way many times and in many places, by sending prophets and scriptures. The last of these books, the Qur'an, portrays a world of signs, a marvellous cosmos of Divine artistry, which calls forth our utter love and devotion, so that 'those who have faith, have most love of God' (2:165), and 'those that believe, and do good works, the Merciful shall engender love among them.' (19:96) In a Hadith we read that 'Not one of you has faith until he loves for his neighbour what he loves for himself' (Bukhari, Bab al-Iman: 13).
2. Human life is a most precious gift of God to each person. It should therefore be preserved and honoured in all its stages.
3. Human dignity is derived from the fact that every human person is created by a loving God out of love, and has been endowed with the gifts of reason and free will, and therefore enabled to love God and others. On the firm basis of these principles, the person requires the respect of his or her original dignity and his or her human vocation.
Therefore, he or she is entitled to full recognition of his or her identity and freedom by individuals, communities and governments, supported by civil legislation that assures equal rights and full citizenship.
4. We affirm that God's creation of humanity has two great aspects: the male and the female human person, and we commit ourselves jointly to ensuring that human dignity and respect are extended on an equal basis to both men and women.
5. Genuine love of neighbour implies respect of the person and her or his choices in matters of conscience and religion. It includes the right of individuals and communities to practice their religion in private and public.
6. Religious minorities are entitled to be respected in their own religious convictions and practices. They are also entitled to their own places of worship, and their founding figures and symbols they consider sacred should not be subject to any form of mockery or ridicule.
7. As Catholic and Muslim believers, we are aware of the summons and imperative to bear witness to the transcendent dimension of life, through a spirituality nourished by prayer, in a world which is becoming more and more secularized and materialistic.
8. We affirm that no religion and its followers should be excluded from society. Each should be able to make its indispensable contribution to the good of society, especially in service to the most needy.
9. We recognize that God's creation in its plurality of cultures, civilizations, languages and peoples is a source of richness and should therefore never become a cause of tension and conflict.
10. We are convinced that Catholics and Muslims have the duty to provide a sound education in human, civic, religious and moral values for their respective members and to promote accurate information about each other's religions.
11. We profess that Catholics and Muslims are called to be instruments of love and harmony among believers, and for humanity as a whole, renouncing any oppression, aggressive violence and terrorism, especially that committed in the name of religion, and upholding the principle of justice for all.
12. We call upon believers to work for an ethical financial system in which the regulatory mechanisms consider the situation of the poor and disadvantaged, both as individuals, and as indebted nations. We call upon the privileged of the world to consider the plight of those afflicted most severely by the current crisis in food production and distribution, and ask religious believers of all denominations and all people of good will to work together to alleviate the suffering of the hungry, and to eliminate its causes.
13. Young people are the future of religious communities and of societies as a whole. Increasingly, they will be living in multicultural and multireligious societies. It is essential that they be well formed in their own religious traditions and well informed about other cultures and religions.
14. We have agreed to explore the possibility of establishing a permanent Catholic-Muslim committee to coordinate responses to conflicts and other emergency situations and of organizing a second seminar in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined.
15. We look forward to the second Seminar of the Catholic-Muslim Forum to be convened in approximately two years in a Muslim-majority country yet to be determined.
All participants felt gratitude to God for the gift of their time together and for an enriching exchange.
At the end of the Seminar His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI received the participants and, following addresses by Professor Dr. Seyyed Hossein Nasr and H.E. Grand Mufti Dr. Mustafa Ceriƒ, spoke to the group. All present expressed satisfaction with the results of the Seminar and their expectation for further productive dialogue.(http://www.catholic.net/index.php?id=24175&option=zenit.)
Here is what is called a Reality Check. It is called the First Commandment:
I Am the Lord Thy God; thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.
Here is another Reality Check: It is called Psalm 95, verse 5:
For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils: but the Lord made the heavens.
Mohammed was neither holy nor beloved by God. He was a fomenter of a false religion and an instigator of great violence against Catholics and the Catholic Faith as the true God, the Most Blessed Trinity, was blasphemed in the devil's book known as the Koran. Any Catholic who considers the propagator of a false religion to be "holy" and beloved" by God is an apostate. He has defected from the Catholic Faith.
Oh, sure, we will be told by many "conservative" Catholics yet attached to the conciliar structures that there is nothing "official" contained in this joint statement. The putative "pontiff" simply concurred with the results of the conference. "All present expressed satisfaction with the results of the Seminar and their expectation for further productive dialogue." Further "productive dialogue." What, pray tell, is "productive" about calling the propagator of a false religion "holy and beloved."
Some might protest that Pope Saint Gregory VII sent a letter to the Mohammedan king of Mauritania, Emir Anazir, in 1076 to thank him for the release of Christian captives as a sign of the Catholic Church's respect for the false religion of Mohammedanism. This is not so. Pope Saint Gregory VII understood that Mohammedanism was not a source of salvation for the sources of its adherents and, as a commentator notes, that the saintly pontiff wanted to lead a crusade against this false religion seven years before Pope Urban II preached the First Crusade, not exactly the same spirit expressed in the joint statement issued on November 6, 2008:
Gregory VII, on his deathbed in 1085, dreamt of forming a Christian League against Islam and said, 'I would rather risk my life to deliver the Holy Places, than govern the Universe'. THE CRUSADES IN CONTEXT
The late Hillaire Belloc profiled Mohammed and his heresy very well in a chapter on his The Great Heresies:
Mohammedanism was a heresy, that is the essential point to grasp before going any further. It began as a heresy, not as a new religion. It was not a pagan contrast with the Church; it was not an alien enemy. It was a perversion of Christian doctrine. It vitality and endurance soon gave it the appearance of a new religion, but those who were contemporary with its rise saw it for what it was not a denial, but an adaptation and a misuse, of the Christian thing. It differed from most (not from all) heresies in this, that it did not arise within the bounds of the Christian Church. The chief heresiarch, Mohammed himself, was not, like most heresiarchs, a man of Catholic birth and doctrine to begin with. He sprang from pagans. But that which he taught was in the main Catholic doctrine, oversimplified. It was the great Catholic world on the frontiers of which he lived, whose influence was all around him and whose territories he had known by travel which inspired his convictions. He came of, and mixed with, the degraded idolaters of the Arabian wilderness, the conquest of which had never seemed worth the Romans' while.
He took over very few of those old pagan ideas which might have been native to him from his descent. On the contrary, he preached and insisted upon a whole group of ideas which were peculiar to the Catholic Church and distinguished it from the paganism which it had conquered in the Greek and Roman civilization. Thus the very foundation of his teaching was that prime Catholic doctrine, the unity and omnipotence of God. The attributes of God he also took over in the main from Catholic doctrine: the personal nature, the all-goodness, the timelessness, the providence of God, His creative power as the origin of all things, and His sustenance of all things by His power alone. The world of good spirits and angels and of evil spirits in rebellion against God was a part of the teaching, with a chief evil spirit, such as Christendom had recognized. Mohammed preached with insistence that prime Catholic doctrine, on the human side the immortality of the soul and its responsibility for actions in this life, coupled with the consequent doctrine of punishment and reward after death.
If anyone sets down those points that orthodox Catholicism has in common with Mohammedanism, and those points only, one might imagine if one went no further that there should have been no cause of quarrel. Mohammed would almost seem in this aspect to be a sort of missionary, preaching and spreading by the energy of his character the chief and fundamental doctrines of the Catholic Church among those who had hitherto been degraded pagans of the Desert. He gave to Our Lord the highest reverence, and to Our Lady also, for that matter. On the day of judgment (another Catholic idea which he taught) it was Our Lord, according to Mohammed, who would be the judge of mankind, not he, Mohammed. The Mother of Christ, Our Lady, "the Lady Miriam" was ever for him the first of womankind. His followers even got from the early fathers some vague hint of her Immaculate Conception.
But the central point where this new heresy struck home with a mortal blow against Catholic tradition was a full denial of the Incarnation.
Mohammed did not merely take the first steps toward that denial, as the Arians and their followers had done; he advanced a clear affirmation, full and complete, against the whole doctrine of an incarnate God. He taught that Our Lord was the greatest of all the prophets, but still only a prophet: a man like other men. He eliminated the Trinity altogether.
With that denial of the Incarnation went the whole sacramental structure. He refused to know anything of the Eucharist, with its Real Presence; he stopped the sacrifice of the Mass, and therefore the institution of a special priesthood. In other words, he, like so many other lesser heresiarchs, founded his heresy on simplification.
Catholic doctrine was true (he seemed to say), but it had become encumbered with false accretions; it had become complicated by needless man-made additions, including the idea that its founder was Divine, and the growth of a parasitical caste of priests who battened on a late, imagined, system of Sacraments which they alone could administer. All those corrupt accretions must be swept away.
There is thus a very great deal in common between the enthusiasm with which Mohammed's teaching attacked the priesthood, the Mass and the sacraments, and the enthusiasm with which Calvinism, the central motive force of the Reformation, did the same. As we all know, the new teaching relaxed the marriage laws but in practice this did not affect the mass of his followers who still remained monogamous. It made divorce as easy as possible, for the sacramental idea of marriage disappeared. It insisted upon the equality of men, and it necessarily had that further factor in which it resembled Calvinism the sense of predestination the sense of fate; of what the followers of John Knox were always calling "the immutable decrees of God."
Mohammed's teaching never developed among the mass of his followers, or in his own mind, a detailed theology. He was content to accept all that appealed to him in the Catholic scheme and to reject all that seemed to him, and to so many others of his time, too complicated or mysterious to be true. Simplicity was the note of the whole affair; and since all heresies draw their strength from some true doctrine, Mohammedanism drew its strength from the true Catholic doctrines which it retained: the equality of all men before God, "All true believers are brothers." It zealously preached and throve on the paramount claims of justice, social and economic.
Now, why did this new, simple, energetic heresy have its sudden overwhelming success?
One answer is that it won battles. It won them at once, as we shall see when we come to the history of the thing. But winning battles could not have made Islam permanent or even strong had there not been a state of affairs awaiting some such message and ready to accept it.
Both in the world of Hither Asia and in the Graeco-Roman world of the Mediterranean, but especially in the latter, society had fallen, much as our society has today, into a tangle wherein the bulk of men were disappointed and angry and seeking for a solution to the whole group of social strains. There was indebtedness everywhere; the power of money and consequent usury. There was slavery everywhere. Society reposed upon it, as ours reposes upon wage slavery today. There was weariness and discontent with theological debate, which, for all its intensity, had grown out of touch with the masses. There lay upon the freemen, already tortured with debt, a heavy burden of imperial taxation; and there was the irritant of existing central government interfering with men's lives; there was the tyranny of the lawyers and their charges.
To all this Islam came as a vast relief and a solution of strain. The slave who admitted that Mohammed was the prophet of God and that the new teaching had, therefore, divine authority, ceased to be a slave. The slave who adopted Islam was henceforward free. The debtor who "accepted" was rid of his debts. Usury was forbidden. The small farmer was relieved not only of his debts but of his crushing taxation. Above all, justice could be had without buying it from lawyers. . . . All this in theory. The practice was not nearly so complete. Many a convert remained a debtor, many were still slaves. But wherever Islam conquered there was a new spirit of freedom and relaxation.
It was the combination of all these things, the attractive simplicity of the doctrine, the sweeping away of clerical and imperial discipline, the huge immediate practical advantage of freedom for the slave and riddance of anxiety for the debtor, the crowning advantage of free justice under few and simple new laws easily understood that formed the driving force behind the astonishing Mohammedan social victory. The courts were everywhere accessible to all without payment and giving verdicts which all could understand. The Mohammedan movement was essentially a "Reformation," and we can discover numerous affinities between Islam and the Protestant Reformers on Images, on the Mass, on Celibacy, etc. (The Great and Enduring Heresy of Mohammed.)
No one who foments a heresy is "holy" or "beloved" in the sight of God. To call the blasphemer Mohammed "holy" and "beloved" in any kind of document attempting to present itself as reflective of Catholic teaching, whether "official' or "unofficial," is to offend God gravely and to reaffirm infidels in a false religion in which their immortal souls cannot be saved as their continue to worship the devil himself.
Saint Francis of Assisi risked his life to seek the conversion of the Mohammedan Sultan al-Kamil, something that is related in Frank M. Rega's St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims:
An early font presents the following account of the discourse of the Franciscans: "If you do not wish to believe," said the two friars, "we will commend your soul to God because we declare that if you die while holding to your law, you will be lost; God will not accept your soul. For this reason we have come to you." They added that they would demonstrate to the Sultan's wisest counselors the truth of Christianity, before which Mohammed's law counted for nothing. In answer to this challenge, and in order to confute the teaching of the two missionaries, the Sultan called in the religious advisers, the imams. However, they refused to dispute with the Christians and instead insisted that they be killed, in accordance with Islamic law.
But the Sultan, captivated by the speech of the two Franciscans, and by their sincere concern for his own salvation, ignored the demand of his courtiers. Instead, al-Kamil listened willingly to Francis, permitting him great liberty in his preaching. He told his imams that beheading the friars would be an unjust recompense for their efforts, since they had arrived with the praiseworthy intention of seeking his personal salvation. To Francis he said: "I am going to go counter to what my religious advisers demand and will not cut off your heads . . . you have risked you own lives in order to save my soul." (Frank M. Rega, St. Francis of Assisi and the Conversion of the Muslims, TAN Books and Publishers, 2007, pp. 60-61.)
Perhaps I missed something. However, I don't think that it was exactly in the spirit of Saint Francis of Assisi that the "meeting" that took place between conciliar officials and certain Mohammedans between November 4 and 6, 2008. The conversion of the Mohammedans was not a subject "on the table" in that meeting. Coexistence was presumed as something that was both inevitable and desirable.
Even the Mohammedan man, journalist Magdi Allam, who was baptized by the priestly hands of Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI during the Novus Ordo Easter Vigil service in the Basilica of Saint Peter on Saturday, March 22, 2008, recently tried to dissuade the false "pontiff" from his belief that the violence associated with Mohammedanism is anomalous and not inherent in the false religion itself:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Muslim-born journalist baptized by Pope Benedict XVI at Easter asked the pope to tell his top aide for relations with Muslims that Islam is not an intrinsically good religion and that Islamic terrorism is not the result of a minority gone astray.
As the Vatican was preparing to host the first meeting of the Catholic-Muslim Forum Nov. 4-6, Magdi Allam, a longtime critic of the Muslim faith of his parents, issued an open letter to Pope Benedict that included criticism of Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue.
In the letter, posted on his Web site Oct. 20, Allam said he wanted to tell the pope of his concern for "the serious religious and ethical straying that has infiltrated and spread within the heart of the church."
He told the pope that it "is vital for the common good of the Catholic Church, the general interest of Christianity and of Western civilization itself" that the pope make a pronouncement in "a clear and binding way" on the question of whether Islam is a valid religion.
The Catholic Church's dialogue with Islam is based on the Second Vatican Council's Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions ("Nostra Aetate"), which urged esteem for Muslims because "they adore the one God," strive to follow his will, recognize Jesus as a prophet, honor his mother, Mary, "value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."
The council called on Catholics and Muslims "to work sincerely for mutual understanding" and for social justice, moral values, peace and freedom.
Allam told Pope Benedict he specifically objected to Cardinal Tauran telling a conference in August that Islam itself promotes peace but that "'some believers' have 'betrayed their faith,'" using it as a pretext for violence.
"The objective reality, I tell you with all sincerity and animated by a constructive intent, is exactly the opposite of what Cardinal Tauran imagines," Allam told the pope. "Islamic extremism and terrorism are the mature fruit" of following "the sayings of the Quran and the thought and action of Mohammed."
Allam said he was writing with the "deference of a sincere believer" in Christianity and as a "strenuous protagonist, witness and builder of Christian civilization."
After Pope Benedict baptized Allam March 22 during the Easter Vigil and Allam used his newspaper column and interviews to condemn Islam, the Vatican spokesman, Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, said that when the Catholic Church welcomes a new member it does not mean it accepts his opinions on every subject.
Baptism is a recognition that the person entering the church "has freely and sincerely accepted the Christian faith in its fundamental articles" as expressed in the creed, Father Lombardi had said.
"Of course, believers are free to maintain their own ideas on a vast range of questions and problems on which legitimate pluralism exists among Christians," he said. (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0805500.htm )
It is pretty bad when a convert out of Mohammedanism has to instruct a putative "pontiff" on the fact that the religion of the "holy and beloved" idolater Mohammed is false and is violent of its very diabolical nature. Perhaps Mr. Allam's "invitation" to speak at the now concluded conciliar-Mohammedan conference was lost in the mail. Then again, of course, such "invitations" are extended only to those who want to persist in their false religions, each of which are accorded great esteem by the lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism in full violation of the First Commandment.
How is it possible to have lost the sense of outrage for the honor and glory and majesty of God that so characterizes many, although not all, Catholics yet attached to the counterfeit church of conciliarism?
Saint Alphonsus de Liguori warned us quite specifically that we need to defend the honor and glory and majesty of God:
Be attentive. Brethern, if we wish to save our souls, we must overcome human respect, and bear the little confusion which may arise from the scoffs of the enemies of the cross of Jesus Christ. "For there is a shame that bringeth sin, and there is a shame that bringeth glory and grace"-Eccl., iv. 25. If we do not suffer this confusion with patience, it will lead us into the pit of sin; but, if we submit to it for God's sake, it will obtain for us the divine grace here, and great glory hereafter. "As," says St. Gregory, "bashfulness is laudable in evil, so it is reprehensible in good"--hom. x., in Ezech.
But some of you will say: I attend to my own affairs; I wish to save my soul; why should I be persecuted? But there is no remedy; it is impossible to serve God, and not be persecuted. "The wicked loathe them that are in the right way"--Prov., xxix. 27. Sinners cannot bear the sight of the man who lives according to the Gospel, because his life is a continual censure on their disorderly conduct; and therefore they say: "Let us lie in wait for the just; because he is not for our turn, and he is contrary to our doings, and upbraideth us with transgressions of the law"--Wis., ii. 12. The proud man, who seeks revenge for every insult he receives, would wish that all should avenge the offences that may be offered to him. The avaricious, who grow rich by injustice, wish that all should imitate their fraudulent practices. The drunkard wishes to see others indulge like himself, in intoxication. The immoral, who boast of their impurities, and can scarcely utter a word which does not savour of obscenity, desire that all should act and speak as they do; and those who do not imitate their conduct, they regard as mean, clownish, and intractable--as men without honour and without education. "They are of the world; therefore of the world they speak"--I. John., iv. 5. Worldlings can speak no other language than that of the world. Oh! how great is their poverty and blindness! Sin has blinded them, and therefore they speak profanely. "These things they thought, and were deceived; for their own malice blinded them"--Wis., ii, 21. . . .
Wicked friends come to you and say: "What extravagancies are those in which you indulge? Why do you not act like others? Say to them in answer: My conduct is not opposed to that of all men; there are others who lead a holy life. They are indeed few; but I will follow their example; for the Gospel says: "Many are called, but few are chosen"--Matt., xx. 16. "If", says St. John Climacus, "you wish to be saved with the few, live like the few". But, they will add, do you not see that all murmur against you. and condemn your manner of living? Let your answer be: It is enough for me, that God does not censure my conduct. Is it not better to obey God than to obey men? Such was the answer of St. Peter and St. John to the Jewish priests: "If it be just in the sight of God to hear you rather than God, judge yet"--Acts, iv. 19. If they ask you how you can bear an insult? or who, after submitting to it, can you appear among your equals? answer them by saying, that you are a Christian, and that it is enough for you to appear well in the eyes of God. Such should be your answer to all these satellites of Satan: you must despise all their maxims and reproaches. And when it is necessary to reprove those who make little of God's law, you must take courage and correct them publicly. "Then that sin, reprove before all"--I. Tim., v. 20. And when there is question of the divine honour, we should not be frightened by the dignity of the man who offends God; let us say to him openly: This is sinful; it cannot be done. Let us imitate the Baptist, who reproved King Herod for living his brother's wife and said to him: "It is not lawful for thee to have her"--Matt., xiv. 4. Men indeed shall regard us as fools, and turn us into derision; but, on the day of judgment they shall acknowledge that they have been foolish, and we have shall have the glory of being numbered among the saints. They shall say: "These are they whom we had some time in derision. . . . . We fools esteemed their life madness, and their end without honour. Behold how they are numbered among the children of God, and their lot is among the saints"--Wis., v. 3, 4, 5. (Sixth Sunday After Easter: On Human Respect.)
Those who cannot rise up in unison to denounce the counterfeit church of conciliarism for blaspheming God by calling His mortal enemy Mohammed "holy" and "beloved" must reckon with these words of Pope Saint Leo the Great:
But it is vain for them to adopt the name of catholic, as they do not oppose these blasphemies: they must believe them, if they can listen so patiently to such words. (Pope Saint Leo the Great, Epistle XIV, To Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica, St. Leo the Great | Letters 1-59 )
We cannot listen patiently to such words as continue to spew forth from the bottomless pit that is the Vatican in its conciliar captivity. We must denounce these words as we cleave only to true bishops and true priests in the Catholic catacombs who profess the entirety of the Catholic Faith whole and undiluted by even one drop of poison, bishops and priests who hold to the Catholic teaching on the papacy, not to the warmed-over and condemned Gallican myths that have been propagated by the Society of Saint Pius X in the past thirty-eight years.
We must give no quarter at all to the blasphemers and apostates of the counterfeit church of conciliarism. No quarter whatsoever. While we must certainly pray for their conversion back to the true Faith and that they will publicly abjure their errors before they die, we must denounce these men as enemies of God and of His Holy Church and thus the enemies of the souls for whom He shed every single drop of His Most Precious Blood on the wood of the Holy Cross, making sure, of course, to make reparation for our own many sins as we offer up our daily prayers and actions and sufferings and humiliations to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
The lords of the counterfeit church of conciliarism has raised up and given credibility to the enemies of God and Holy Mother Church by extending favored "invitations" to their leaders to participate in various events as "equals" with them in "ecumenical" dialogue. We must, especially by means of the Rosaries that we pray each day, invite these apostates back home to the Eternal Rome of the Catholic Church from which they have expelled themselves in order to do the bidding, whether wittingly or unwittingly, of the adversary and thus to deceive Catholics and non-Catholics alike as the modern world with which they have made a "reconciliation" totters on ruination right before their very eyes.
Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon!
Vivat Christus Rex! Viva Cristo Rey!
Isn't it time to pray a Rosary now?
Viva Cristo Rey!
Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.
Saint Joseph, pray for us.
Saints Peter and Paul, 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 Andrew Avellino, pray for us.
See also: A Litany of Saints