Reaction on social media to Bergoglio’s latest heresy (see Interreligious Meeting with Young People, Singapore, Sept. 13, 2023) has been largely as expected. Among the more predictable responses:
LifeSite News started a petition that aims to “Tell Pope Francis that there is only one true religion and that Christ is the only way to God the Father.”
Do John-Henry Weston and Steve Jalsevac (who I recognize as decent, hardworking men of faith) really believe that this petition is finally going convince Bergoglio to embrace the Catholic faith?
No, of course not. No one is that stupid. So why do they bother? My best guess is that it’s a ploy designed to capture a few more email addresses of persons that might one day be converted. To donor status, that is.
UNSOLICITED ADVICE: Knock it off, guys. You’re making it difficult for readers to take your work, which is often good, seriously.
Another predictable response came from a gentleman who posted on X, “Francis needs to be REMOVED!”
I understand the sentiment entirely, but this invites a crucial question: Removed from what?
If he means to suggest that Francis is unworthy of occupying the office of such esteemed predecessors as John Paul II and Benedict XVI, I disagree entirely. To be clear, the office in question, the one that Jorge Bergoglio presently holds, is CEO of Conciliar Church, Inc., an office for which he is eminently qualified.
You see, the real problem here is that – unbeknownst to many an unsuspecting soul – the conciliar church isn’t the Catholic Church, it’s a counterfeit that embraces and promotes a false religion. As such, it doesn’t really matter whose heretical hind parts are sitting in the big chair. The main reason Francis stands out among his predecessors is that he often expresses the false conciliar faith more boldly than the men who came before him.
This brings me to a related response, also predictable. This one comes from a priest on X who has seventy-nine thousand followers. Father (who, in charity, I won’t name) wrote:
In light of the controversy over the remarks attributed to Pope Francis (all religions offer a valid path to God), although there appears to be different translations in circulation, a few words about religious indifferentism. [Emphasis in original]
Ah, yes… those rascally translation issues!
To be clear, Father seems quite sincere. Even though he abstains from raising his voice along with those who are rightly condemning what Francis plainly stated, there is value in providing a catechism lesson on religious indifferentism. The problem, as we shall see, is that his lesson is tinged with conciliar poison.
He continued:
Religious indifferentism, as understood within Catholic teaching, refers to the idea that all religions are equally valid paths to God or that one religion is as good as another. [Emphasis in original]
This isn’t exactly true.
In Mirari Vos (1832), the encyclical of Pope Gregory XVI – a text that Father would later reference in his post – the Pontiff provides the following concise definition of what he calls “the perverse opinion” known as religious indifferentism:
It is possible to obtain the eternal salvation of the soul by the profession of any kind of religion, as long as morality is maintained.
Notice, however, that Father introduced subjective ideas into the discussion that are nowhere to be found in Mirari Vos, namely, concepts such as equally, and as good as. In fact, he not only mentioned these notions, he also chose to put them in italics, as if to suggest that they are crucial.
In truth, they are not. Religious indifferentism as defined by Gregory XVI isn’t about which path is equal to, or as good as, the next, it’s about the notion that more than one path exists at all. Period.
In the very next sentence, however, Father broadens the topic further still, stating:
This notion is fundamentally at odds with traditional Catholic doctrine and condemned as such, which holds that the Roman Catholic Church alone holds the fullness of divine revelation and truth. [Emphasis in original]
Mirari Vos says nothing whatsoever about the Catholic Church alone holding the fullness of divine revelation and truth. She does, of course, but again, the issue at hand is whether or not one can attain to salvation via any one of multiple religions.
So why was Father moved to inject these other concepts into the discussion? The main purpose, it seems, is to mount a defense of the Second Vatican Council. Father writes:
The Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) introduced language that some interpret as softening the Church’s stance on other religions, particularly in documents like Dignitatis Humanae (on religious freedom) and Nostra Aetate (on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions). However, these documents, while promoting respect and dialogue with other religions, do not endorse indifferentism. Instead, they affirm that while elements of truth and sanctification can exist in other religions, the fullness of truth subsists in the Catholic Church. [Emphasis in the original]
I, for one, found his choice of the highly charged phrase “subsists in” curious. The Council notoriously employed it in place of the word “is,” apparently in order to placate the Protestants, thus lending credence to their false religions and wayward communities:
- The one Church of Christ … subsists in the Catholic Church. (LG 8)
- This one true religion subsists in the Catholic and Apostolic Church. (DH 1)
As for why Father chose to employ this phrase, only he can say. Whatever the case may be, the main point is that you can’t blame Vatican II for whatever Francis said since the Council “didn’t endorse indifferentism.”
I disagree entirely. The Council didn’t merely soften the Church’s stance on other religions, it plainly fostered religious indifferentism in various ways. For example:
- In Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. (NA 2)
Not so. In Hinduism, men do not contemplate the divine at all, rather, they plainly worship false gods (e.g., Vishnu, Lakshmi, Shiva, Parvati, Brahma and Saraswati), gods that are demonic.
- Buddhism … teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. (ibid.)
What exactly is supreme illumination? The Council doesn’t say, but the expression certainly calls to mind Divine Revelation, does it not? Perhaps that’s the point… Regardless, there is only one Way, namely, Jesus Christ who said, “I am the truth” (John 14:6), and it is He alone who offers perfect liberation.
You shall know the truth: the truth shall make you free. If the son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed. (John 8:32, 36)
- The Moslems adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself. (NA 3)
No, they do not; they adore the false god of the Qur’an, Allah.
- Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles making both one in Himself. (NA 4)
Bear in mind that the conciliar document Nostra Aetate (in English, In Our Time) is speaking of modern day self-identified Jews, the same who openly mock the Cross and Our Lord.
As for what they do believe, the Talmud – which contains the guiding principles of post-Christian rabbinic Judaism (so called) – claims that Jesus is now boiling in excrement in Hell.
Our Lord plainly said, “He that despises me despises him that sent me.” (Luke 10:16)
So, who are you going to believe, Our Lord or the Council?
- Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. (ibid.)
Inconvenient fact: This is precisely what Sacred Scripture says of the Jews.
“For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse.” (Gal. 3:10)
And yet, the Council insists that the Jews of our time are one with us in the Cross of Christ, the instrument of salvation for all mankind? If this doesn’t amount to endorsing indifferentism, nothing does.
With respect to the heretics, the Council very boldly insists:
- For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [the heretical and schismatic communities “as such”] as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church. (cf UR 3)
Don’t be pacified by the second half of this grossly erroneous statement. It matters not from where the alleged “efficacy” is derived – indeed all salvific efficacy ultimately comes from Christ – the heresy lies in the assertion that these communities, which are separated from the one true Church, are themselves efficaciously used by God as means of salvation, as communities.
Still confused as to whether or not a conciliar basis exists for Bergoglio’s contention that “all religions are a path to arrive at God”?
One way to attain clarity is to consider how his recent predecessors, John Paul II and Benedict XVI – each of whom were fully committed to implementing Vatican II – understood the conciliar teaching.
In a meeting with the bishops of Malawi in May 1989, John Paul II quoted himself:
As I said to the young Muslims whom I met in Morocco in 1985: “Christians and Muslims, in general… have badly understood each other, and sometimes, in the past, have opposed and even exhausted each other in polemics and in wars. I believe that today, God invites us to change our old practices. We must respect each other, and also we must stimulate each other in good works on the path to God.”
Get that? John Paul II plainly insisted that Muslims and Christians are both “on the path to God.”
This is precisely the same religious indifferentism for which Francis is presently under fire.
Benedict XVI, for his part, during his audience of October 26, 2011, spoke about the upcoming interfaith “Day of Reflection, Dialogue and Prayer for Peace and Justice in the World,” which was meeting scheduled for the following day.
Commonly referred to as Assisi III, the event featured Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Sikhs, Bahais, Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, assorted African pagan religions, and even atheists! Benedict said of the gathering:
I chose to give this Day the name of “Pilgrims of truth, pilgrims of peace”, to stress the commitment that we desire to solemnly renew, together with the members of different religions, and also with men and women, non-believers who sincerely search for the truth, in promoting the authentic good of humanity and in building peace. As I have already mentioned, “Whoever is on the path to God cannot but transmit peace, whoever builds peace cannot but come closer to God”.
Are you paying attention? Members of different religions … whoever is on the path to God.
In this, Benedict was also quoting himself, in this case, comments made on January 1 of that same year:
It [the 2011 interfaith day of prayer at Assisi] will aim to commemorate the historical action desired by my Predecessor and to solemnly renew the commitment of believers of every religion to live their own religious faith as a service to the cause of peace. Those journeying to God cannot but transmit peace, those who are building peace cannot but draw close to God.
Believers of every religion … journeying to God.
As I stated in the previous post, Francis isn’t unique. He’s just the latest in a decades-long line of heretics-in-white merely posing as Vicars of Christ, each one committed to the belief that the various religions of the world are a path to arrive at God.
