Francis' Apostacy Is Blatant And In Our Faces

Yesterday on the World Over, Raymond Arroyo interviewed Bishop Athanasius Schneider.  That portion of the program begins at the 31:00 mark on the clip below.   When asked about the Pope's heretical statement last week, namely the heresy of indifferentism uttered in Singapore, His Excellency stated, "regrettably, Pope Francis contradicts the First Commandment of God and the entire Gospel."  When Arroyo asked him how Catholics should process what happened, the bishop replied that Peter, the first Vicar of Christ, denied Jesus three times.  What came to my mind was Peter's almost immediate repentance and the fact that these sorts of antics were far from habitual for Peter.

The bishop then stated that we must pray that Francis repents and then proclaim that there is no other name but Jesus' name, by which we can be saved.

Likewise, Archbishop Vigano released his own statement that condemned Francis' words.  An excerpt is published at LifeSiteNews.  He reiterated that the Church is the "only arc of salvation", and that "to deny this truth is to apostatize from the Faith and to trample on the Cross".

How Is This Not Material Heresy, If Not Formal Heresy?

In a meeting with some Singapore youth before his return trip to Rome, the pope proclaimed as truth what is in reality the heresy of indifferentism.  He said, and I quote, "every religion is a way to arrive at God."  Read the entire address here where he piles error on top of error.  Do you notice how he lists Christianity along with all the other heretical and pagan creeds?  Those other creeds, particularly the pagan ones, center around the worship of demons.  Absent from that list is the One True Faith.

What Francis said directly contradicts what our Lord said in John 14:6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father, but by me."  Again we read in Acts 4:12, "for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved."

Here is a smattering of some writings of previous popes on the heresy of indifferentism.  Please note how Leo XIII linked indifferentism with freemasonry.  He is right, as freemasons enshrine indifferentism in their rites and practices.  This heretical screed of Francis does seem to pave the way for the One World Government, with its One World Religion.

I am going to link to some commentary from Taylor Marshall on the topic.

Why Did The Pope Go To Iraq?

 In regards to his recent trip to Iraq, Pope Francis was dismissive of those who said that in this trip, he flirted with heresy.  Well, truth be told, he's been making a career of flirting with heresy; this trip is not unique in that dismal respect.  Moreover, when the description of the purpose of religion (as he stated) given before muslim leaders doesn't even mention the word "God" but focuses on temporal matters, we can say that he's moved beyond flirtation.

On his return trip from Iraq to the Vatican, the pope gave an interview.  Like many of his previous plane interviews, it's a humdinger.  Catholic News Agency published the full text. Read the heretical nonsense in his own words.  He calls the Muslim leader Al-Sistani "a man of God".  What "god"?  He certainly doesn't worship the One True God as Catholics do.  Even he would admit that the Muslims worship a different being than do we Catholics.  It's worthwhile to consider the saint for whom the pope took his name.  St Francis visited the Muslims with the clear intent to convert them from their ways and have them come into the Church.  He wasn't successful, but neither did he call "a man of god" the leader who had martyered five Franciscans before Francis' arrival.

He then coined a new term "next-door saints", whom he defined as "men and women who live their faith, whatever it may be, with coherence".   So the Muslim suicide bombers are "next door saints"?  Whatever else they are, they are people who live their murderous creeds.  As we know, saints are those who have attained heaven, with some being put before us as examples of dedication to Our Lord and to His Church.  One is not a saint who does not acknowledge Jesus Christ as True God.

This jaunt was gob-smacked full of religious indifferentism plus a total focus on this secular world to the exclusion of the spiritual realm.  Nowhere in that interview did I see mention of Jesus Christ and His commands to lead peoples to conversion for their eternal salvation.  Not a peep was said about that.

Another reason to avoid donating to your dioceses is that a portion of that will go to the Vatican to finance gabfests such as this Iraqi session.  Not another penny to them.

Witchcraft, Islam And Humanism - De Facto Creeds Of The New Age

This post regarding these three popular manifestations of idolatry appeared a few days ago and it provides much food for thought.  I'd go a bit further than the author does.  He merely says that these idols are merely filling in a vacuum being left by a dying and shriveling church.  I, however, believe that the church isn't merely making way for these, but actively ushering them to places of prominence.  Witness the "poop video" in the post previous to this one.

Another very recent manifestation seems to come from a most surprising source - the canonization of Mother Teresa.  There is no doubt that she and her sisters spent their lives in heroic service to many destitute people and not too many of us can forget the truth she spoke to power at the 1994 prayer breakfast.  But there were troubling signs of indifferentism throughout her writings, at least in the early days.  There is this quote from A Simple Path: "I’ve always said that we should help a Hindu become a better Hindu, a Muslim become a better Muslim, a Catholic become a better Catholic."  We know that the only way a Hindu, Muslim or anyone else can become "better" is to embrace the One True Faith, not to become further entrenched in their false religions.  The Bellarmine Forum carries an article about the relationship between Mother Teresa and Father John Hardon.  While it rightly praises Mother's many virtues, we see starting in the second paragraph testament to her unwillingness to teach the creeds of the Faith, saying "her sisters were there to help the poor".  So the imparting of the Faith would not have assisted the poor?  But Father was there, at the behest of Pope John Paul II, to equip the sisters to engage in that aspect of charity and I believe that they did.  But did Mother ever walk back that statement as quoted from A Simple Path?

It does seem that at least in the first stage of the ministry of the Missionaries of Mercy, Mother Teresa was content to focus on the Corporal Works of Mercy to the exclusion of the Spiritual Works of Mercy.  I'll now link to an article by Msgr Charles Pope, written over a year ago, entitled "What Ever Happened To The Spiritual Works Of Mercy?"  It is worth careful study, as are the comments below.  I truly am glad that Pope John Paul II, through Father Hardon, corrected that short-coming in the Missionaries of Mercy.

Let's move onto Islam.  I'll now post an account of an interview granted by Cardinal Burke.  In that interview, His Eminence states that the belief that Christians and muslims worship the same god stems from relativism.  It might be indifferentism, too, such as the one seen Mother Teresa's quote in A Simple Path.  It is quite blasphemous to state that those who behead babies, stone rape victims, engage in terrorist bombings by using their own children, etc, etc, in the name of their god, somehow worship the One, True God.  Yet that is what progressive church leaders thrust down our throats, as our post-Christian culture makes ever-increasing concessions to muslims while treating Christians - particularly faithful Catholics - as de facto "niggers of the new age".

Again we see the Church hierarchy welcoming in this heresy, not only in the misguided indifferentism rightly condemned by Cardinal Burke, but also in troubling actions by Pope Francis.  Recall his allowance of muslim prayers to the false "allah" idol within the Vatican gardens and his washing of the feet of muslims during Holy Thursday services.

These embraces of both humanism and indifferentism by progressives in the Church not only facilitate cultural suicide, but also facilitate the damnation of immortal souls by holding up to them lies as though they were truths.

Pope Espouses Indifferentism On Earth Day

Yesterday as the Focolare cult movement was celebrating "earth day", Pope Francis dropped by and offered some "off-the-cuff" remarks.  Crud has a report on the mess.  Towards the end of the article, one can see that the pope is explicitly embracing indifferentism.  To wit: "And in this humanity, we can get close to each other to work together … But I belong to this religion, or to that one …it doesn’t matter!"

Oh, yes it does matter which religion we follow!  Jesus Christ established the One True Church, that is, the Roman Catholic Church.  To her He entrusted the Sacraments and the Full Deposit of Faith and Tradition.  To foolishly claim "it doesn't matter" is to commit a sin against faith and against God who commands how He wishes to be worshiped.  It trivializes and holds cheap the graces that are to be found in the Roman Catholic Church alone.  Any one of us engaging in that sin would be held accountable for this sin against the First Commandment.  It is reasonable to believe that such accountability is magnified many times for the Chief Shepherd of the Church.

Speaking of "earth day", here is a stamp that the Vatican released in its honor.  Look closely.  Do you detect anything that might suggest the Vatican's role in the Church?  I can't detect one Crucifix on it.

ICYMI: On #EarthDay, Vatican announces new stamp. "Think green." pic.twitter.com/A93tf34DTC

— Catholic News Svc (@CatholicNewsSvc) April 23, 2016

But there is a religion being touted on that stamp, albeit implicitly: gaia-worship.  It seems that according to the pope, "gaia-worship" is on a par with Catholicism.  Any Catholic who truly believes that is engaging in heresy and endangering their immortal soul.  Please wake up and go to Confession immediately.

Saint John Neumann Bulletin Praises Feminist Song-Writer

In its bulletin for this coming weekend, St John Nuemann Catholic Church has a rather laudatory blurb about Ruth Duck (scroll to page 4 of this link and look in the right-hand column).  Two years ago I posted my own blurb about her; let's just say it helped reveal her true progressive colors.

Let's unpack this bulletin blurb, shall we?  We read  "The issue of language that is fair and just is still a crucial
concern for those who worship in the vernacular."  Doesn't it make you wonder what the writer considers "fair and just" and what they consider its opposite to be?  If you read my link, you can see all the new-age tinged language with which Duck insults God.

Then we read "people passionately are committed to developing a language whose style and tone is as reverent as it is relevant. One of the leaders in this movement is Ruth Duck."  Well, no one can doubt that Duck is "passionately committed to developing a language."  Again, you can see what kind of language she's "developing" in my earlier blog post.  And now, it is NOT reverent!

I would say this woman veers close to heresy, but she isn't Catholic.  That's all the more reason why she is completely unqualified to tinker with the language and worship of Catholics.  I for one will not let that happen.  If As A Fire Is Meant For Burning is sung this weekend, I will substitute the lyrics, "We will preach our creeds and customs, for immortal souls we care" in place of the indifferentism-spawned slop that is embedded in that song.  I invite my fellow parishioners to do the same.

UPDATE!  I just heard from a good source that the above-mentioned Ode to Indifferentism is indeed in this weekend's repertoire!  Who will sing my improved lyrics??

Indifferentism Poisoning DC And Boston Chanceries

In both the Tenth Crusade and Rorate Caeli we read that Boston's Cardinal O'Malley reaffirmed his baptism under the dubious "ministry" of a Methodist named Anne Robertson.  As the Tenth Crusade points out, Roberson is pro-abortion.  But even if she advocated traditional morality, this ceremony was still scandalous on its face.  Since when does a Prince of the Church accept faux-ministry from a Protestant as though it were equivalent to ministry from a Catholic priest?

What is at play here is the heresy of indifferentism - the false belief that all religions are equivalent on God's eyes.  We of the Archdiocese of Washington are no strangers to such slop as it oozes from our own chancery - and has been for quite a while now.

For instance, who can forget the debacle of September 2005 when Cardinal McCarrick gave an "ecumenical" address to the King of Jordan and other Muslim persons at the Catholic University of America?   I originally published the text of his remarks on my earlier website and do so now.  In his very first sentence, he said that he "invoked allah, the compassionate and merciful lord of all the world".  He went on to invoke "allah" two more times.  Guess how many times he mentioned the words "Jesus Christ"?  That's right!  Zilch!  Zip!  Nada!  Does it not make you wonder just whose bishop he is?

Cardinal O'Malley, a member of the Pope's advisory Council of Cardinals, reportedly is in close contact with the Holy Father.  Did this episode come to Pope Francis' knowledge?  Why, when he holds such a position of responsibility, would Cdl O'Malley engage in actions that any reasonable person would see as scandalous?  Is he taking cues from the Vatican?  Recall that it was Pope Francis who himself broke Canon Law on Holy Thursday when he washed a woman's feet.  We look askance upon all this.  While Our Lord promised that the gates of hell would never prevail against us, He never promised us a cake walk.  We may well have opponents within the highest ranks of the Vatican.

Twin Perils Of Indifferentism And Universalism

Cardinal Dolan Shames His Faith In Front Of Muslims

A few days ago Cardinal Dolan met with about forty other faith leaders at the Staten Island Albanian Islamic Cultural Center.  Did he preach the Faith?  Did he seek their conversion to Christianity?  Did he, in other words, behave like - a bishop?

In a word, NO.

He uttered heresy when he said to the Muslim leaders, "you love god, we love god and he is the same god'."  There is a reason why I did not capitalize those "g"s.  Simply put, what the Muslims worship is a false idol; it is not the One, True, Triune God.  Even the true Muslims, for all their many faults, understand that "allah" is not equivalent to the One True God (although their perspective is different).  He then lauded them for "not losing their faith".  Faith in a false idol?  Your Eminence, you are more at fault than they for you spouted the heresy of indifferentism at them as opposed to the truth of the Gospel.

He is not the first Prince of the Church to try to curry favor with Muslims by behaving as though heresy was equivalent to the One True Faith.  Our own Cardinal McCarrick set less-than-sterling examples of that many times in the past - chronicled by Yours Truly.

Pray for our shepherds. And by all means, speak out!

The Perils Of Indifferentism

As my blogging colleague at Tenth Crusade points out, there has been much heated discussion about Father Robert Barron's critique of Ralph Martin's book, "Will Many Be Saved?".  Father Barron seems to hold the very dangerous notion that hell is not an imminent danger for folks today.  I join my friend, Dr. Martin and many, many saints (including Our Lady of Fatima) who hold that indeed hell will most likely be a very crowded place.  We might recall, by the way, during the deliberations about the new Mass translations, how the phrase "pro multis" was changed from "for all" to "for many"; that caused quite a stir.

I'm going to post a Vortex below, but first I'll say a few things about indifferentism and how some good people seem to be seduced by it.  At Mass during September, there was a homily on "purity of heart".  The priest held up as an example of such "purity" - Mahatma Gandhi.  Mind you, I have no way of knowing his state - one way or the other (yes, non-judgmentalism is a door that swings both ways).  I do know, however, that he was invited to examine Christianity but declined to do so.  One such overture to Gandhi was related during that homily.  Father related that a friend of Gandhi approached him and invited him to become Christian.  To that invitation, Gandhi replied, "Why don't you?".  Father then called that "a good challenge".  I beg to differ.  It seems that in addition to snubbing that Christian's invitation, Gandhi was holding himself as a competent judge of that Christian's virtue.  That was not "a good challenge" but plain old snarkiness - for which I hope he repented.  The troubling aspect of this homily was that Gandhi was being held as a model for Christian purity of heart - without being a Christian.  That homily left a wide opening for the heresy of indifferentism to take hold in the minds of the congregation that day.

In addition to such teaching, indifferentism has found another avenue into the hearts and minds of many sincere Catholics.  That insidious avenue has a name - Medjugorje.  In the early '80s, when word of the apparitions reached the US, I believed them and started to take my Catholic faith more seriously.  However, because I took my faith seriously, I read much traditional literature - and realized that some underlying themes of the apparitions didn't measure up to tradition.  I cannot say there was a subtle undercurrent of indifferentism in the "messages" coming from the apparition - for there was nothing subtle about it.  For a taste of the indifferentism, read this piece from someone who still believes the apparition's claims that it is the Blessed Mother.  Note that it says "you must respect each man's beliefs".  Wrong.  We must respect each man as being created in the image and likeness of God.  But that's very different from saying we must respect the beliefs of each man - for these very same beliefs may lead one to damnation.  (What??  We should "respect" the beliefs of jihadists, satanists, human sacrificers, etc?)  Then it holds out as an example of holiness a Muslim woman who lived in the village at the time.  Now perhaps this lady was a good kind lady - but without sanctifying grace (that comes from the sacraments) I don't see how she'd fit the definition of "holy".  Furthermore, I have difficulty believing that there was no decent Catholic woman in the village who might have been holy.  This evidence of indifferentism has made me realize that the apparition is not what it claims to be.

Now here's the Vortex.  Click here if you can't see embedded video.

Two Bishops Acting Like...Bishops!

In my previous post I focused on the bishops' conferences both in the US and the UK.  I am pleased to note today's news of bishops on both sides of the Atlantic speaking truth.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has made known his advocacy of "gay" marriage.  He received a very direct rebuke from Bishop Joseph Devine of the Diocese of Motherwell in Scotland.  From Lifesite News we read that the bishop called Cameron a "disciple of Nero" and wondered out loud how Cameron could expect anyone to trust or respect him.  The bishop concluded by saying "we will take no finger-prodding from anyone or any group devoid of moral competence."  To that I can only add "AMEN"!

Meanwhile, in the Diocese of Madison (WI), Bishop Robert Morlino has banned two renegade nuns from offering spiritual direction or holding workshops in any of the Catholic churches.  Sisters Maureen McDonald and Lynn Lisbeth have been dabbling in new age nonsense and espousing indifferentism.  According to the Wisconsin State Journal, Bishop Morlino has banned some others from speaking due to errant teachings - including some men (lest some accuse the bishop of sexism!).

Talk about a breath of fresh air!!

National Shrine Scheduled To Be Defiled

On September 17th, I gave "first notice" about the blasphemy at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception that is scheduled to occur on Tuesday, November 16th.  It is called "The 31st Annual Interfaith Concert".  It is being produced by the Interfaith Conference.  I urge you to look at the link to the September 17th post, for contained therein is some information about the foundation - namely, how it greases the skids to the heresy of indifferentism.

The notice I just received informs me that Fred and Lesley Israel will be honored.  Just who are they?  The announcement doesn't say a whole lot - but a person's politics does say lots  about their beliefs and governing philosophies.

A person's politics govern how he/she donates.  Ladies and gentlemen, I'm sure you are aware that your contributions to candidates for Federal office are a matter of public record.  As such, websites are devoted to the same - newsmeat.com is one of them, and that does tell a story about Fred Israel.  You can link to that record here and here, but I'll just highlight some key recipients of his donations over the years: Bill Clinton, John Kerry, Barbara Mikulski, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, Mark Shriver, Frank Kratovil - pro-abortion Democrats (save for one donation to Phil Graham) all.  Lesley Israel has made it a point to contribute - several times - to Emily's List, which is explicitly devoted to electing pro-abortion candidates.  Others on her list include Mikulski, Ben Cardin and yes, the Messiah Most Miserable himself.

With their last name, I don't believe the Israels are Catholic, so it's incorrect to state that they are violating their creeds with such contributions.  However, the question must be asked - why are supporters of abortion rights being honored at a Catholic Bascilica?  In fact, why is the entire blasphemy being allowed to occur there?  There will be Baha'is, Buddhists, Muslims, etc singing songs and praying to their false gods on a Catholic altar!   Ladies and gentlemen, can we say the word "abomination"?

Here is contact information.  Please let your concerns be made known.  Thank you.

Upcoming Sacrilege At Shrine of Immaculate Conception In DC

From the Interfaith Conference I received an email detailing The 31st Annual Interfaith Concert.  I attended one several years ago - at the Shrine.  It truly was a disgusting spectacle to behold: scantily-clad Hindu dancing girls prancing across the altar, Muslims chanting to "allah".

To the right is the mosaic of Christ under which the blasphemies occurred then, and will occur in two months.  This is an image of Christ coming in final judgment.  I cannot help but believe His countenance is just as stern when He looks upon such follies occurring within His Church.  Does He love those who blaspheme?  Of course He does.  When will we learn, though, that it is no act of love whatsoever to allow His lost sheep to continue in their errors?  We must preach His saving truth to them - not allow them to continue to trifle with their eternal destinies.

By the way - I took a little tour of the Interfaith Conference website.  Talk about a trip through indifferentism!  On the main page, we see that there will be an "interfaith dialog" between the Archdiocese of Washington and the Islamic Society of North America.  Hey!  Before when did we hear that name?  Now go to the "bridge builders" page to see how the John Paul II Cultural Center was recently misused.

Now we get to have a lesson in patent dishonesty.  Go to "learn about member religions" and you'll see their logo, enlarged.  Each of the symbols therein is "clickable", with the links taking you to a blurb about its respective creed.  Click on the "crescent and star" to be redirected to an explanation of Islam - well, kinda.  It's been sanitized to an extent.  The Islamic declaration of faith quoted therein is "There is no god but God and Muhammad is God’s messenger."  The words in fuscha are the substituted, sanitized words for the actual originals.  What really belongs there, to render it the true Islamic declaration is the word "Allah".  Google the phrase "there is no god but allah" and you will bring up a gajillion Islamic sites that unambiguously proclaim that phrase.   So why, oh why, does the Interfaith Conference slop around with the terminology in such fashion?  I think we can all venture a guess.  They want to help perpetuate the illusion that the "god" of Islam and the Judeo/Christian God are the same.  They aren't - pure and simple.

The entire goal of the Interfaith Conference seems to be to quietly insinuate the heresy of indifferentism into our belief systems.  The fact that the rectors of the National Shrine are allowing the Shrine to be a part of this effort is despicable.  I can only hope they are truly ignorant of what they are doing.  However, if they had just the slightest amount of common sense, they would have to know that something is dreadfully wrong with allowing songs to false gods to be sung before the Blessed Sacrament.  As a refresher to all, I again link to Mirari Vos, written by Pope Gregory XVI in 1832.  Pay special attention to paragraph 13.

McCarrick Blooper - Embracing Indifferentism?

In a comment to my Sept 2nd post regarding the Standard article, I reminded one and all about an address Cardinal McCarrick gave in 2005 in which he invoked "allah" three times without so much as mentioning the name of Jesus Christ once.  Here is the text of that address.

Well, he did it again, so to speak.  He was a featured speaker at a press conference put on by the Islamic Society of North America, joining the parade of progressives who are denouncing opponents of the Ground Zero mosque as engaging in "derision" and "bigotry".

Those of us who have heard the Cardinal know that he is a master at the usage of double negatives in his verbal discourses.  From elementary school grammar lessons, we know that double negatives cancel out the "negative" meaning of the sentence in which they're embedded.  It's a way to say something while leaving enough verbal "wiggle room" to deny responsibility for the statement.  He gave an example of this rather devious technique at this press conference.  To wit:

Cardinal McCarrick: “As an American, I believe that we all have a right to practice what God tells us is his message to us and if therefore, if someone – if someone sees the Gospel as the truth of God’s presence in our world, that person should embrace the Gospel.  If a person sees the Qu’ran as proof of God’s presence in the world, then I cannot say, ‘don’t embrace the Qu’ran’ so that I think we – we should always be willing to talk to people and we should always be willing to love them and we should always be willing to allow them that freedom of conscience which comes from God.”

Your Eminence, what do you mean with this "I cannot say don't embrace the Qu'ran"?  For you, by virtue of your Sacrament of Holy Orders and of being a Prince of the Church, you must  proclaim the Gospel and its supreme truth.  That is not optional, that is your solemn obligation!

What is also amazing is that this statement is made in response to a rather straight-forward question.  He was asked if he believed a Muslim born in Mecca should have the right to convert to Catholicism.  The Cardinal never gave a clear answer to that question.  Please visit the link to the press conference; on that page is a video of the interview with Cardinal McCarrick (I can't embed that here).

The New Advent website gives a concise definition of religious indifferentism.  I think we saw His Eminence openly proclaiming that at the press conference.  Pope Gregory XVI, in his encyclical Mirari Vos, condemned this indifferentism as a heresy (see section 13).

Do you think we'll see this in the next Catholic Standard?  We've seen more stupid things therein now, haven't we?

By the way - I thank Pewsitter for alerting me to this.