Pope Francis’ remarks on faith in ‘Laudate Deum’ are even more alarming than his climate activism

[Stone]

Pope Francis’ remarks on faith in ‘Laudate Deum’ are even more alarming than his climate activism
Laudate Deum cannot be approached as just another text in which Pope Francis rehashes the clichés of climate alarmism. His strange statements that touch on faith itself are a far more serious problem.



Pope Francis in conversation with the AP, Jan 24, 2022.
Screenshot

Oct 5, 2023
(LifeSiteNews) — Comments on the Apostolic Exhortation Laudate Deum will no doubt focus on Pope Francis’ recommendations for safeguarding the “common home”– an expression coined by Gorbachev at the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union – in his follow-up to the “ecological” encyclical Laudato si’.

But irrespective of what one might think of the Pope’s interference in an area that does not fall within his duty to strengthen his brothers in the faith, it contains a far more serious problem, precisely on the subject of faith. It is this issue which should be the object of our concern and our supplication to God to put an end to a crisis which seems, at the moment, to be reaching a climactic point in the Church.

READ: Pope Francis calls for obligatory global ‘climate change’ policies in new document ‘Laudate Deum’

Following his many considerations on the “climate crisis,” Pope Francis includes a short chapter on the “spiritual motivations” of his commitment to the planet, writing in paragraph 61:

I cannot fail in this regard to remind the Catholic faithful of the motivations born of their faith. I encourage my brothers and sisters of other religions to do the same, since we know that authentic faith not only gives strength to the human heart, but also transforms life, transfigures our goals and sheds light on our relationship to others and with creation as a whole.

“Authentic faith,” no less! Let us carefully consider the Pope’s words: He specifically attributes to “brothers and sisters of other religions” an “authentic faith.” But this is absurd. Faith can only be authentic and true if its object is true. Logically, there can only be one “authentic” faith, because it is not just a vague human feeling, but an adequation between the intellect, the soul, what one believes, and reality, divine reality.

READ: Pope Francis advocates for powerful global government not subject to ‘changing political conditions’


Laudate Deum travesties the faith, which is a supernatural virtue

The Pope’s remarks reveal an abysmal ignorance, perhaps even a deliberate misrepresentation, of what faith actually is.

There is a confusion here between the natural and the supernatural. Faith, authentic faith, true faith, is a theological virtue, a supernatural virtue given to us, along with hope and charity, through baptism. It consists in believing the revelation given by God and God alone, in all those truths that man cannot know by the power of reason alone.

Faith is not to be confused with religion, the natural virtue by which man, thanks to reason, can and even is obliged to recognize the existence of a God who transcends him, and to whom he owes adoration and gratitude. Religion can be true or false, depending on its object: the being it worships.

By referring to the “authentic faith” of “brothers and sisters of other religions” – when our spiritual brotherhood derives precisely and solely from the grace received at Baptism, which makes us children of God and therefore brothers in faith – Pope Francis distorts and devalues our Catholic faith. He subjectifies it.

What do we receive in baptism? The grace of being washed of original sin – and for adults receiving baptism, of all personal sin –, divine filiation through incorporation into the Mystical Body of Christ and the ability to become co-heirs with the Son of God, as well as the infusion of the supernatural virtues of faith, hope and charity, and the indwelling of the Holy Trinity in our souls, which remains as long as we retain sanctifying grace. “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God,” St. Paul teaches.

Such is the greatness, the immensity of the gift of faith, such is the specificity of the unfathomable grace received through baptism.

To claim that any believer in just about anything – worshipers of Allah, the Sun or the Great Spaghetti Monster – possesses that living, “authentic” faith that only God freely gives, transcending the limits of our poor wounded nature, is (God help us!) to deny the Catholic faith in its very roots.

With this in mind, Laudate Deum cannot be approached as just another text in which Pope Francis rehashes the clichés of climate alarmism and submits to the preconceived ideas and conclusions of those who preach it.

Preconceptions: There is a climate crisis; man is responsible for it; it is “global.”

Conclusions: Because it is global, it is present everywhere, and it therefore must be combated in every detail of life. This totalitarianism – for it is indeed a totalitarianism – is what justifies all the measures that are being advocated today, from the so-called “moral duty” to ride one’s bike rather than one’s car, or to turn off the lights when leaving the room, on an individual level, to the global taxation of “carbon” and the compliance by all nations with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in order to reduce man’s “ecological footprint” on Mother Earth.

Having stated that to combat the “climate crisis,” “preference should be given to multilateral agreements between States,” the Pope once again makes his the language of the current globalists in paragraph 35 of Laudate Deum: 

It is not helpful to confuse multilateralism with a world authority concentrated in one person or in an elite with excessive power: ‘When we talk about the possibility of some form of world authority regulated by law, we need not necessarily think of a personal authority.’ We are speaking above all of ‘more effective world organizations, equipped with the power to provide for the global common good, the elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure [defense] of fundamental human rights.’ The issue is that they must be endowed with real authority, in such a way as to ‘provide for’ the attainment of certain essential goals. In this way, there could come about a multilateralism that is not dependent on changing political conditions or the interests of a certain few, and possesses a stable efficacy.

The aim is to endow global, supranational organizations with “authority,” i.e. binding powers. This is a political program that does not consist in teaching all nations and making them disciples, “baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” the divine and spiritual mission entrusted to His Church by Our Lord at the moment of His Ascension, but in giving an earth-bound roadmap aimed at the submission of nations to a seemingly natural objective. Here we must keep in mind Chesterton’s warning: “Take away the supernatural, and what remains is the unnatural.”


Laudate Deum personifies the earth

All this is done in the name of the earth: a personified earth, an almost god-like earth. Adopting the language of the ecological religion installed in the climate discourse, Pope Francis speaks of the “cries of protest of the earth” (paragraph 5), the “cry of the earth” theorized by liberation theologian Leonardo Boff in his 1995 book, Ecology and Poverty, Cry of the Earth, Cry of the Poor.

The entirety of Laudate Deum focuses on this purely natural horizon, seeking to save the planet rather than souls. Jesus warns us: “What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his soul?” If we fail to focus first on Jesus Christ, there is no point in worrying about (alleged) global warming. People will all die anyway, with or without global warming, and what matters is that they attain eternal salvation.

This also we know: “Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given you besides.” This phrase from Our Lord underpins the whole of the Church’s “social doctrine”: it is the key. We must first respect divine law, we must embrace the kingdom of God through the life of grace, we must seek it in all things, and then will the harmony of life on earth, peace (including social peace), which is the tranquility of order, be given to us. It is by seeking God that the Benedictine monks transformed Europe into a garden of Christendom.


Towards pantheism

Sadly, Laudate Deum goes even further, by devaluing the kingdom of God which, as we know, is not of this world. The Apostolic Exhortation – in line with the climate religion which, at rock bottom, is designed to establish a global spirituality to which everyone is supposed to be able to adhere – uses the language of pantheism.

Here are a few examples, with many quotes from Laudato si’:

§ 25: Contrary to this technocratic paradigm, we say that the world that surrounds us is not an object of exploitation, unbridled use and unlimited ambition. Nor can we claim that nature is a mere ‘setting’ in which we develop our lives and our projects. For ‘we are part of nature, included in it and thus in constant interaction with it’, and thus ‘we [do] not look at the world from without but from within’…

§ 64: Jesus ‘was able to invite others to be attentive to the beauty that there is in the world because he himself was in constant touch with nature, lending it an attraction full of fondness and wonder.’

Just read the New Testament, and you will find nothing of the sort. Jesus teaches – as He does in chapter 6 of St. Matthew’s Gospel and chapter 12 of St. Luke’s Gospel – that we are worth far more than the wondrous goods of nature, and that our eye must be fixed on that which is supernatural. Our treasure is in heaven, and in that sanctifying grace which places the Holy Trinity itself in the depths of our soul.

§ 65: Hence, ‘the creatures of this world no longer appear to us under merely natural guise, because the risen One is mysteriously holding them to himself and directing them towards fullness as their end. The very flowers of the field and the birds which his human eyes contemplated and admired are now imbued with his radiant presence’. If ‘the universe unfolds in God, who fills it completely… there is a mystical meaning to be found in a leaf, in a mountain trail, in a dewdrop, in a poor person’s face’…

§ 67: The Judaeo-Christian vision of the cosmos defends the unique and central value of the human being amid the marvelous concert of all God’s creatures, but today we see ourselves forced to realize that it is only possible to sustain a ‘situated anthropocentrism.’ To recognize, in other words, that human life is incomprehensible and unsustainable without other creatures. For ‘as part of the universe… all of us are linked by unseen bonds and together form a kind of universal family, a sublime communion which fills us with a sacred, affectionate and humble respect.’

So, is the Judaeo-Christian vision obsolete? Should it be overturned if not turned upside down? And how can we fail to see here the confusion between nature and grace that lies at the root of the errors conveyed by Laudate Deum?

These are far more serious than the Pope’s declarations on climate and the globalist solution to the “climate crisis,” which – is it necessary to point this out? – have no guarantee of infallibility and are not binding on Catholics.

While on this point it’s possible for us to remain relaxed, Pope Francis’ strange statements that touch on faith itself are shattering. How can a pope say such things?

As a man, he can. As we all are, and only too often, even the Pope can be unfaithful to the mission God has given him. But the Church, as we also know, benefits from God’s promise: The gates of hell shall not prevail (which of course means that they have been striving to bring Her down ever since Christ instituted Her), and Our Lord will remain with Her until the end of time.

Are we shaken? We certainly are. But then the time has come for prayer as never before: prayer for the Pope and for the Church. We can also cry out: “Lord, save us! We are perishing!”, but already we are sure of the answer: “Why are you terrified, O you of little faith?”

He is here with His Church, until the end of time.

[Stone]

As awful as these words by Pope Francis are, they were already enshrined in Vatican II.... People are indignant upon reading the words of Francis, not realizing these 'time bombs' have been in place for decades. He is the one throwing these bombs out onto the world - but they did not originate with him.


The following analysis is taken from the SiSiNoNo study, The Errors of Vatican II, September 2003 No. 55


9) The False Representation of Non-Christian Religions

• Falsely attributing to non- Christian religions that, like us, they believe in God the Creator.
  Gaudium et Spes §36 states:
  

  "...[All] believers of whatever religion have always heard His revealing voice in the discourse of creatures."1

  To attribute this to non-Christian religions is false. Citing just the two examples of Hinduism and Buddhism, both completely ignore the idea of a God who created from nothing and who reveals Himself in His creatures, since both are convinced that reality proceeds through emanation of an impersonal, cosmic, eternal force which is identically replicated in all things, from which force all comes and to which all returns, becoming a part of it, dissolving into it.
  
  
• Likewise,inconceivably awarding the marks of truth and holiness to all the non-Christian religions, whereas they do not contain revealed truth, but are the fruit of the human spirit and, so, neither redeem nor save anyone
  Nostra Aetate §2 states:
  

  The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy (vera et sancta) in these religions. She looks with sincere respect upon those ways of conduct and of life, those rules and teachings which, though differing in many particulars from what she holds and sets forth, nevertheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men.

  It is necessary to note the contradiction in the above, noting too its decidedly Deist tone. That is, if these religions "differ... in many particulars" from the Catholic Church's teaching, how can they "often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men"? This means that, for the Council, the truth "which enlightens all men" perhaps comes through rules and teachings that differ "in many particulars" from the Church's teaching! (How could an authentic ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church have been inspired to articulate such an idea?)
  
  
• [Vatican II's] baseless assertion, always denied by Tradition and Holy Scripture (e.g., Ps. 95:5: "For all the gods of the Gentiles are devils"; and I Cor. 10:20), that pagan religions, past and present, would have in some way been included in the plan of salvation. In fact, §18 of Ad Gentes, on missionary activity, states:
  

  Working to plant the Church, and thoroughly enriched with the treasures of mysticism adorning the Church's religious tradition, religious communities should strive to give expression to these treasures and to hand them on in a manner harmonious with the nature and the genius of each nation. Let them reflect attentively on how Christian religious life may be able to assimilate the ascetic and contemplative traditions whose seeds were sometimes already planted by God in ancient cultures prior to the preaching of the gospel.

  Here, "ancient cultures" whose gods were "devils," and whose sacrifices were offered "to devils and not to God" (I Cor. 10:20), are unjustly re-evaluated by the Council, which wants to recognize in them a salvific presence of "semina Verbi" of the "seeds of revealed Truth." But that violates a truth always held to belong to the deposit of Faith. In Lumen Gentium §17 and in Ad Gentes §11, the same idea is applied to all contemporary non-Christian peoples, including pagans: missionaries must discover the "hidden seeds of the Word" in the people whose evangelization has been entrusted to them.
  
  
• The false representation of Hinduism, because Nostra Aetate §2 states:
  

  Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an unspent fruitfulness of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek release from the anguish of our human condition through ascetical practices or deep meditation or a loving, trusting flight toward God.

  This is a false representation because it leads the Catholic to see Hindu mythology and philosophy as valid, as if they might effectively "search for" the "divine mystery," and as if Hindu asceticism and meditation bring about something similar to Christian asceticism.
  
  On the contrary, we know that the mix of mythology, magic, and speculation that characterizes Indian spirituality from the Veda era (16th to 10th centuries B.C.) was responsible for a totally monist and pantheistic conception of the divinity and the world, because by conceiving of God as a cosmic, impersonal force, it does not admit the idea of creation, and, consequently, it does not distinguish between sensible reality and supernatural reality. Nor does it distinguish between material and spiritual reality, nor between the whole and specific elements. Because of this, all individual existence dissolves into the amorphous cosmic One, from which all emanates and to which all eternally returns. Thus, the individual "I" is, per se, purely appearance. The Council characterizes this thought as "penetrating," yet it lacks the idea of the individual soul (which was well recognized by the Greeks) and what we call free will and free choice.
  
  Add to this the doctrine of reincarnation, a particularly perverse idea. Reincarnation was explicitly condemned in the schema of the Dogmatic Constitution De Deposito Fidel Pure Custodiendo, which was elaborated during the preparatory phrase of the Council. But John XXIII and the progressives saw to it that it was run aground during the Council because of its paucity of "ecumenical" character. There is also the fact that so-called Hindu "asceticism" is nothing more than a form of Epicureanism for Brahmins, an egotistical and refined search for a superior spiritual attitude toward all desire, even good, and toward all responsibility, an indifference justified by the idea that all suffering makes up for the faults committed in one's former life, etc. One would really like to know how anyone could want to lead Catholics into such a conception of the world?
  
  
• The false representation of Buddhism, an autonomous variant partially purified of Hinduism. In fact, in Nostra Aetate §2, one reads:
  

  Buddhism in its multiple forms acknowledges the radical insufficiency of this shifting world. It teaches a path by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, can either reach a state of absolute freedom or attain supreme enlightenment by their own efforts or by higher assistance.

  This is a portrait of Buddhism a la de Lubac, one revised and corrected so that ignorant Catholics can think well of it. Such Catholics do not know that "the radical insufficiency of this shifting world" is enshrined by Buddhists in a veritable "metaphysics of nonbeing," according to which the existence of the world and the self are illusory and appearance only.
  
  Therefore, Buddhism does not just say that the self and the world are decaying and transient, but still truly real, as for the Christian. For the Buddhist, everything "is being made and is decaying" simultaneously. Life is a continual flux filled with universal pain and grief. In order to banish this sadness, it is necessary to persuade oneself that all is vain. It is also necessary to free oneself from all desire and to entrust oneself to undergo an intellectual initiation, a gnosis similar to the Hindus' (going so far as to permit "sexual magic" in Tantric Buddhism).
  
  This gnosis must make us arrive at complete indifference to everything, which is termed, Nirvana, meaning "disappearance," "extinction": a final condition of absolute privation, in which there is nothing but nonexistence, the void, in which the self is totally extinguished in order to be anonymously dissolved into the All and the One. This is the "state of absolute freedom" or "supreme enlightenment" that Vatican II dared to offer to the attention and respect of Catholics.
  
  
  
• In Lumen Gentium §16, the statement:
  

  But the plan of salvation (propositum salutis) also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place (in primis) among these there are the Moslems, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind (qui fidem Abrahae se tenere profitentes, nobiscum Deum adorant unicum, etc.).

  This statement falsely attributes adoration of our God to the Moslems, and includes them, per se, in the plan of salvation. This statement is contrary to dogma because those who do not worship the true God are not included in the plan of salvation. And the Moslems do not adore the true God because, although they attribute to God (Allah = "God"), the creation of "the world" and "man" from nothing, and accord traditional attributes of omnipotence and omniscience to Him, and although they recognize him as Judge of human beings at the end of time, Allah is not thought of as God the Father, who in His goodness created man "in his image and likeness" (Gen. 1:26; Deut. 32:6, etc.). Further, Moslems do not believe in the Holy Trinity, and their abhorrence of it repeats the Jews' error. Consequently, they deny grace, our Lord's Divinity, Incarnation, Redemption, His death on the Cross, and His Resurrection. They deny all of our dogmas and refuse to read the Old and New Testaments. Because they obviously contain no mention of Mohammed, the Moslems consider the Old and New Testaments to be falsified texts.
  
  Too, Moslems deny free will (defended only by a few minority Moslem exegetes who are viewed as heretics), while professing an absolute determinism which admits of there being no place in the world for true relationships between cause and effect, so that, out of time, all of our actions, good or bad, have already been "created" by Allah's inscrutable decree (Koran 54: 52-53).
  
  Lumen Gentium §16's recognition of Islam is repeated in an even more detailed and gravely erroneous way in the Declaration Nostra Aetate's §3:
  

  Upon the Moslems, too, the Church looks with esteem. They adore one God, living and enduring, merciful and all-powerful, Maker of heaven and earth and Speaker to men (qui unicum Deum adorant etc...., homines allocutum). They strive to submit wholeheartedly even to His inscrutable decrees (cuius occultis etiam decretis toto animo se submittere student), just as did Abraham, with whom the Islamic faith is pleased to associate itself.

  This goes so far as to state that the God in whom the Moslems believe "has spoken to men"! Therefore, by this does the Council demonstrate that it views as authentic the "revelation" transmitted by Mohammed in the Koran? If so, isn't this implicit apostasy from the Christian faith, given that the "revelation" in the Koran specifically contradicts all of Christianity's basic truths?
  
  Moreover, it also represents the Moslems' way of believing precisely as they themselves understand it, as if to approve it. In fact, it employs the usage, "submission to God," which is the meaning of the term "Islam" (submission), and whose substantive adjective is muslim (Mussulman = submission [to God]). In its entirety, this passage seems to reflect the Koran's own 4:124: "And who has a better religion than he who submits himself entirely to Allah, doing good and following the belief of Abraham, like a pure monotheist (hanif)?" Finally, the allusion to obedience to the decrees of Allah "even if they are hidden" has a strong Islamic aura because it reminds us that in the Koran, Allah is defined as "the visible and the hidden" (57:3), visible in his works and hidden in his decrees. Therefore it seems that the Council wanted to have its "esteem" understood, rather than shrink from according such esteem to the Koran and Islam because of the ambiguous, troubling, impenetrable quality of the entity spoken of in the Koran.
  
  Vatican II praise of the Moslems' profession of the "faith" of Abraham, as if it constitutes a quality linking them to us, obscures the truth, since we know that the Abraham of the Koran, who is infused with a legendary and apocryphal quality, does not correspond to the real Abraham, who is evidently the Abraham of the Bible. This, because the Koran attributes a "pure monotheism" or anti-Trinitarianism, anterior to Judaic and Christian monotheism, to Abraham. Thus, as an Arab prophet and a descendant of Abraham thanks to Israel, Mohammed would have been sent in order to restore this pure monotheism by liberating it from the so-called Jewish and Christian falsifications!
  
  
  
• Nostra Aetate §3 also takes into serious consideration the veneration that the Moslems accord Jesus and the Blessed Virgin Mary:
  

  "Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they call on her, too, with devotion."

  But it is well known that the Koran's "Christology" is founded on an altered and deformed Jesus of the apocryphal gospels and of all sorts of Gnostic heresies that proliferated in Arabia in Mohammed's time. The Koran's Jesus (Isa) was born of a virgin through a divine intervention (of the angel Gabriel), a prophet particularly appreciated by Allah, a simple mortal whom Allah permitted to work numerous miracles, a prophet who thus preached the same monotheism as that attributed to Abraham (57:26-27), whose recited formula is: "There is no God but God, one, lord" (38:65). This is why, for the Moslems, Jesus was a servant of God (19:31), submissive to Allah, that is, a Moslem, a Mussulman, to the point that, like Abraham, he announced the coming of Mohammed (51:6)! Therefore, when the Moslems venerate Jesus as a prophet, they mean that he is a "prophet of Islam," a lie that any Catholic, provided that he still has the Faith, obviously cannot accept.2
  
  As for the Moslem veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, that they "sometimes call on her with devotion," from a practical standpoint, it must be said that this "devotion" is meaningless and based on superstition. Such as it is, this "devotion" to Mary is such only in terms of her being the mother of a "prophet of Islam," and not because she is the Mother of God. Therefore, it is offensive to Catholic ears.
  
  Moreover, it is necessary to repeat that the Koran's "Mariology" is also entirely corrupted because its origins are in apocryphal and heretical sources. The existences of St. Joseph and the Holy Ghost are completely ignored. And Mary is called "sister of Aaron," "sister of Moses," and "daughter of Imram" (Hebr. Amram), who was their father (Num. 26:59), thus confusing her with the prophetess Mary (Ex. 15: 21) who lived circa 12 centuries before Christ! And as if this weren't enough, she is introduced into the Christian Trinity, so detested, and which is denied with such aggressiveness, because, according to the Koran, it is made up of God (the Father), Mary (Mother) and Jesus (the Son): "Jesus never said: take me and my mother as two divinities, before God"! (5:116).
  
  
  
• Finally, Nostra Aetate §3 seems to praise the Moslems and to present them as an example to Catholics because
  

  "they await the day of judgment when God will give each man his due after raising him up. Consequently, they prize the moral life and give worship to God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting."

  
  The article concludes:
  

  Although in the course of the centuries many quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this most sacred Synod urges all to forget the past and to strive sincerely for mutual understanding. On behalf of all mankind, let them make common cause of safeguarding and fostering social justice, moral values, peace, and freedom.

  
  Historical facts are also overturned here, since the bloody, long, and cruel battles, faith against faith, that we have had to launch over the course of the centuries to repulse Islam's assault, are adroitly reduced to the size of simple "quarrels and hostilities." Passed over in silence are the abysmal differences that exist between Catholic and Moslem eschatology (the absence of a Beatific Vision, the luxury of paradise, the eternity of infernal punishments reserved only for infidels), as well as the abysmal differences between our and their conception of "moral life" and of "veneration": Islam is a religion which not only allows unacceptable moral structures, such as polygamy, with all of its corollaries, but also alleges to guarantee salvation simply by carrying out legalistic practices of worship: therefore, it is an exterior and legalist religion, even more so than Pharisaism, expressly condemned by our Lord (cf. Mt. 6:5).
  
  All of this is passed over in silence in order to invite us into collaboration that is impossible for the simple reason that the meaning the Moslems give to the words "social justice," "peace," "freedom," etc., is merely that which can be drawn from the Koran or from the words and deeds of Mohammed, a meaning established over the course of the centuries by "orthodox" interpretation: an Islamic meaning totally different from our own. For example, Moslems do not understand peace in the way that the currently reigning Pope understands it. They do not believe that Moslems can live under infidels. This is why they divide the world into two parts, one where Islam rules (the house of Islam) and the rest of the world, necessarily an enemy unless it converts and submits (house of war), the rest of the world with whom the Islamic community believes itself to be perpetually at war. Therefore, for them, peace is not an end in itself that allows them to coexist with different nations and religions; it is only a means, imposed by circumstances which oblige them to make truces with infidels. But the truce must have a limited duration; it must never exceed ten years; and every time they have the means, then war must be resumed. For the Moslem, this is a juridical, religious, and moral obligation. It is in force until the final, inevitable battle that results in the installation of a world Islamic State.
  
  NOTE
  The Council seems to justify its statement that "the Moslems adore with us the one true God, etc." by the quote contained in a note of personal gratitude sent by St. Gregory VII, Pope from 1073 to 1085, to Anazir, Emir of Mauritania. The Emir had been well disposed to oblige certain of the Pope's requests and had also been generous concerning some Christian whom he had taken prisoner. In this letter, the Pope stated that this act of "goodness" was "inspired by God," who commanded us to love our neighbor, and specifically asks "from us and you...that we believe in and confess the same God, although by different modes (licet diverso modo), that we praise and venerate each day the Creator of the ages and master of this world" (PL, 148, 451 A). How can such a statement be explained? The answer: by that era's ignorance regarding the religion founded by Mohammed.
  
  At the time of St. Gregory VII, the Koran had not yet been translated into Latin. This is why basic aspects of its "credo" were not understood. It was known that the Moslems, those fierce enemies of Christianity, who suddenly emerged from the Arabian desert in 633 with a conquering violence, would sometimes demonstrate a certain respect for Jesus, but only as a prophet, and for the Virgin Mary; that they believed in one God, in the inspired nature of Sacred Scripture, in the Judgment and in a future life. Consequently, they could have been taken for an heretical Christian sect ("the Mohammedan sect"), an equivocation that was held for a long time since, at the beginning of the 14th century, Dante placed Mohammed in hell among heretics and schismatics (Hell, XVIII, V. 31 ff.).
  
  It is in this context that the praise privately addressed to the Emir by Gregory VII ought to be seen: praise for someone held to be a heretic who, on this occasion, had behaved charitably, as if the true God, in whom he thought he believed, had touched his heart. Thus, in effect, one can speak of a heretic who believes in the same God as ours, but in a different way. Nevertheless, St. Gregory VII's praise of the Emir did not prevent him from defending, in a perfectly coherent way, the idea of an expedition launched from all of the Christian countries against the Moslems, in order to help Eastern Christianity when it was threatened with extinction. This idea was carried out shortly after his death with the first crusade, preached by Urban II.
  
  The first Latin translation of the Koran did not take place until 1143, fifty-eight years after the death of St. Gregory VII, by the Englishman Robert de Chester for the Abbot of Cluny, Peter the Venerable, who added a strong refutation of the Islamic creed. Actually, this translation was a summary of the Koran, and remained the only translation for many centuries, until the critical and complete version was done by Fr. Marracci in 1698. In the first half of the 15th century, the Cardinal of Cusa set the stage for this first translation by writing his famous Cribatio Alcorani, a critical study of the Koran. This preceded by a few years the Bull issued in October 1458 by Pius II (Aeneas Sylvius Piccolomini) for the purpose of launching a crusade (which was never carried out) against the Turks who surged into the Balkans after having seized Constantinople. In this Bull, the Pope referred to the Moslems as disciples of the "false prophet Mohammed," a definition that he reasserted on September 12, 1459, in a remarkable speech in the Mantua Cathedral, where the Diet charged with approving the crusade was convoked. In this speech, he referred again to Mohammed as an impostor; he also said that if the Sultan Mehmed were not stopped, after subjugating all of the Western princes, he would then "destroy the Gospel of Christ and impose the law of his false prophet on the entire world."3 Therefore, this speech rectified the former perception and constituted the Pontifical teaching's clear and strong condemnation of Islam and its prophet. Once and for all, it eliminated the equivocation which had defined Islam as a Christian "heresy."
  
  
  
• In Nostra Aetate §4, the propositions:
  

  True, authorities of the Jews and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ (cf. Jn. 19:6); still, what happened in His passion cannot be blamed upon all the Jews then living, without distinction, nor upon the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures.

  Necessary to note here is the attempt to limit the responsibility for Deicide to a small group of quasi private individuals, whereas the Sanhedrin, the supreme religious authority, represented all of Judaism. Therefore, in the rejection of the Messiah and Son of God, it had collective responsibility for the Jewish religion and the Jewish people, and this irrefutably is stated in Holy Scripture: "And from then on, Pilate was looking for a way to release him. But the Jews cried out, saying, 'If thou release this man, thou are no friend of Caesar; for everyone who makes himself king sets himself against Caesar'" (Jn. 19:12); and "And all of the people answered and said, 'His blood be on us and our children'" (Mt. 27:25).
  
  Also striking is the statement that "the Jews should not be presented as repudiated or cursed by God, as if such views followed from the holy Scriptures." This lacks the necessary distinction between individuals and the Jewish religion. If the subject is individual Jews, the statement is true, and is exemplified by the great number of converts from Judaism in all eras. But if the subject is Judaism as a religion, the assertion is both erroneous and illogical: erroneous, because it contradicts the evangelical texts and the Church's constant faith from her origins. (cf. Mt. 21:43: "Therefore I say to you, that the Kingdom of God will be taken away from you and will be given to a people yielding its fruits.") And it is illogical, because if God did not reject the Jewish religion or the Jewish people in the religious sense (which in Jesus' time was one and the same thing), then the Old Testament has to be viewed as being still valid, and contiguous and concurrent with the New Testament. This, then, would sanction the unjustified awaiting of the Messiah, a hope still entertained by today's Jews! All of this is a totally lying representation of Judaism and its relationship to Christianity.
  
  
  
• The unacceptable statement, contrary to the eternal doctrine of the Church as well as to all Catholic exegesis, that the books of the Old Testament clarify and explain the New, whereas it has always been taught that the opposite is true, without reciprocity, and, therefore, that the New Testament sheds light upon and explains the Old Testament . Dei Verbum § 16 states:
  

  God, the inspirer and author of both testaments, wisely arranged that the New Testament be hidden in the Old and the Old be made manifest in the New. For, though Christ established the New Covenant in His blood (cf. Lk. 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25), still the books of the Old Testament with all their parts, caught up in the proclamation of the gospel, acquire and show forth their full meaning in the New Testament and in turn shed light on it and explain it.

  
  
  
• The inversion of Catholics' mission regarding the members of other religions. Rather than exhort the faithful to a renewed energy for converting the greatest number of unbelievers possible by wresting them out of the shadows they are in, in Nostra Aetate §2, the Council exhorts her sons:
  

  Prudently and lovingly, through dialogue and collaboration with the followers of other religions, and in witness of Christian faith and life, acknowledge, preserve, and promote the spiritual and moral goods found among these men, as well as the values in their society and culture.

  
  In other words, it is saying that [the Church's sons] should conduct themselves in such a way that the Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., remain Buddhists, Hindus, Moslems, and Jews, etc., and that [the Church's sons] should even "promote" the social and cultural values of their respective religions, all hostile to revealed truth. This exhortation expresses a general principle set forth by the Council to the "Church" which was to be born of its reforms and which defines itself as "the Conciliar Church" (cf. Cardinal Benelli), a principle which tells "the people of God"-priests and laity-the attitude that they are to take concerning the "separated brethren" and all non-Christians. This and other pastoral exhortations (for example in Lumen Gentium §17'; Gaudium et Spes §28; Unitatis Redintegratio §4) constitute overt treason against the order given by the Risen Christ Jesus to the Apostles: "Go then, teach all nations" (Mt. 28:19), an order which, mutatis mutandis, is valid for all believers, insofar as they are able, because every believer, as miles Christi, must bear witness to the faith according to the works of corporal and spiritual mercy.
  
  How can anyone be surprised that the application of this deadly exhortation has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Catholics having already become Buddhists or Moslems, whereas the conversions of Buddhists or Moslems to Catholicism are practically nonexistent? How can anyone deny that this exhortation is one of the factual proofs that the post-conciliar crisis has its roots in the false doctrines which suffused the Council's texts?