Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 10/29/2026 2:29:29 PM PDT by ebb tide
In his recent interview with Michael Matt, Bishop Athanasius Schneider spoke of the way in which some bishops in Europe praise and promote Islam:
“Many bishops in Europe say this religion is fine, we support this religion, because they believe in one god . . . and by this [these bishops] are denying or betraying the divine command of Christ to evangelize all nations. Jesus Christ did not say to go and baptize all nations except the Jews and the future Muslims.”
It is astounding to consider that, based on Bishop Schneider’s description, there could be bishops in Europe who are more likely to support Islam than Traditional Catholicism.
Gaetano Masciullo’s recent article tells a similar story, as he details the way in which certain bishops in Italy support pro-Islam education in Catholic religion classes:
“Created by a joint team of Catholic and Muslim experts who negotiated over differences to produce a single, mutually agreed text, the 11-module curriculum presents Islamic doctrine, including describing the Koran as the ‘revealed word of God,’ under the pretext of eradicating ‘ignorance’ and fostering social cohesion.”
Bishop Schneider and Mr. Masciullo are, of course, pointing to grave scandals that offend God and lead souls to hell, but is this a surprise? John Paul II kissed the Koran in 1999, and we find the following praise for Islam in Vatican II’s declaration on the relation of the Church to non-Christian religions, Nostra Aetate:
“The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving, and fasting.”
Of course, this does not go so far as to directly praise the Koran, but the overall sense is that Islam is an admirable and praiseworthy religion that honors God. That being the case, on what basis should we expect European bishops to oppose Islam?
For a sense of how these bishops were likely formed in their priesthood, we can look to the words of Yves Congar, found in a book published in 1987, Fifty Years of Catholic Theology: Conversations with Yves Congar:
“What do you think of Islam? The theological status of Islam is an immense problem that I haven’t really studied. . . . For Fr. Daniélou, Islam was a regression towards the faith of Abraham, and I quite like this position, without regarding it in any pejorative way, for the positive side of Islam as a religion is indisputable. Was Mohammed an inspired prophet? I think that one can accept that, not in the sense of full biblical inspiration, but in the sense in which many religious men are inspired. Beyond question, Mohammed was an extremely great and extremely profound religious figure.” (p. 34)
Congar and Daniélou were both influential at Vatican II and beyond, and both were made cardinals after the Council. While Rome was condemning men like Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, it was promoting these men who saw Islam as a “positive religion.” In such an environment, it is natural to find many bishops today who praise and promote Islam.
What, though, did the Church teach prior to the Council? For a view of true Catholic teaching, we can look to Archbishop Lefebvre’s words from his Against the Heresies:
“Nowadays, if one says that the other religions are false religions, the progressives are furious. They cannot bear to hear it. ‘Then you condemn all the other religions? All the other religions are bad?’ they ask accusingly. It is a visceral reaction on their part, and this reaction is in conformity with the fundamental principle of Liberalism, that is, all religions are good. ‘You think that only the Catholic religion is good and able to do good in society, but consider the piety of the Moslems and Buddhists,’ they say. The popes were not liberals; they remained firm in the Faith and always deliberately distinguished the true from the false religions. For from what spirit do the false religions come? Do they come from the spirit of God or do they come from Satan? If they are false, then they take their origin from the spirit of error, the spirit of lies, and the father of lies and of error is the devil. The false religions were invented by the devil expressly in order to separate entire peoples and entire countries from Our Lord and to impede them from becoming Catholic and from hearing the Truth.” (p. 199)
Archbishop Lefebvre did not make these ideas up — this is simply what the Church had taught for centuries leading up to Vatican II. False religions keep souls from God’s truth, so it is contemptible for Catholics to praise them.
Archbishop Lefebvre also wrote of Islam in his The Mystery of Jesus, in which he clearly explained why it is such an error to speak of Jews and Muslims as worshipping the same God as we do:
“In our Faith, it is not permitted to separate the Persons of the Blessed Trinity. This has ramifications. For instance, it cannot be said, as we often hear said nowadays, that we have the same God as the Jews and the Moslems. People talk frequently about ‘the three great monotheist religions,’ placing them on the same level, as if we adored the same God! But by the very fact that the Jews reject Jesus Christ, by the very fact that the Moslems do not recognize the divinity of our Lord, neither the one nor the other adores the same God we do. It is absolutely impossible to say that they have the same God as we, because it is not true. From the moment you refuse our Lord, you refuse the Blessed Trinity, you refuse God. . . . It is unbelievable, but nonetheless a fact that these are commonplace errors, to be met with in the writings and in the words of priests, theologians, and even bishops!” (p. 131)
Even though we are encouraged to think otherwise, this is the truly charitable view about false religions. The greatest manifestation of true charity is to want the salvation of our neighbor, and we know from the Acts of the Apostles that we cannot be saved other than in the name of Our Lord:
“Neither is there salvation in any other. For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12)
Are these words true or not? A person who does not believe this has no business calling himself Catholic. If one is Catholic, though, the implications are evident: we cannot in any way encourage our neighbors to persist in false religions.
It would be bad enough if praise for false religions just led souls to hell, but it is also a grave offense against God that surely invites His wrath. When we have priests, bishops, and popes honoring and promoting non-Catholic religions while they simultaneously condemn Traditional Catholicism, we are witnessing an offense against God that the saints could not have fathomed other than in connection with prophecies of the end times. And if we can judge by the patterns of salvation history, it is entirely reasonable to see that God would punish this by allowing the apostasy of those Catholics who offend Him in this way, and the collapse of those formerly Catholic nations that suppressed Catholicism in the name of religious liberty for false religions.
While we cannot rejoice in evil, seeing divine justice at work can serve as a salutary reminder that we should seek to honor, rather than mock, God. Those in the Vatican have apparently not yet learned this lesson. May God grant them the grace to open their eyes before it is too late for them and what remains of Europe. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
“What do you think of Islam? The theological status of Islam is an immense problem that I haven’t really studied. . . . For Fr. Daniélou, Islam was a regression towards the faith of Abraham, and I quite like this position, without regarding it in any pejorative way, for the positive side of Islam as a religion is indisputable. Was Mohammed an inspired prophet? I think that one can accept that, not in the sense of full biblical inspiration, but in the sense in which many religious men are inspired. Beyond question, Mohammed was an extremely great and extremely profound religious figure.” (p. 34)
Yeah ... like certain other individuals in history, "inspired" by the demon sitting on his shoulder whispering in his ear.
Beyond question, Mohammed was an extremely great and extremely profound religious figure.”
Beyond question, Josef Stalin was an extremely great and extremely profound political figure.
Beyond question, Mao Tse Tung was an extremely great and extremely profound political figure.
Beyond question, Idi Amin Dada was an extremely great and extremely profound political figure.
Beyond question, Pol Pot was an extremely great and extremely profound political figure.
In the Middle Ages wasn’t there a dissident Pope in southern France?
What the Pope is doing makes sense only if the intention is to make the transition to Islam as smooth as possible.
They must not be familiar with what happened to Constantinople.
They ignored that while it was happening so I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.
BUMP!
What Happened to the Faith?
Commercialized religion, a corrupt Vatican and totally useless Popes. Pretty much the standard story regardless if it’s a religion or government... corruption at all levels.
Religion and faith is personal not something you get on a particular day in a certain building.
Needless to say they also believe in several tenets such as ambushing non-believers and cutting their throats. They believe in cowardly ambushes and killing innocents as a means of advancing their faith.
Face it, Moose Limbism is the opposite of our faith. It is a grand conspiracy among millions of mortal sinners and truly evil people.
This in contrast with our Lord, who said "I am truth".
He also said that satan was the "father of all lies".
Lying is not only inimical to them is the antithesis of Christianity and Judaism.
All the other things they do to children, multiple wives, animals, slaves, are clearly wrong.
These upper level priests (Cardinals) are just wrong, compromised, on the take, stupid, cowardly, or a linear combination of the above.
They are a sickening disgrace.
The Catholic Church is dissolving before our eyes because of nematodes like these Vatican people.
I think their afterlife will not be what they suppose it will be.
And a lot of them are dinosaurs: I would be pretty nervous about Judgment Day if I were them. They don't have a lot of time to atone for this blasphemy and apostasy.
They are leading Catholic kids astray. It's tantamount to molestation, telling such horrible lies to children about their faith, that Moose Limbism is also a religion just like theirs.
Here's a little hint: $$$$.
The whole thing sounds insane to me. Why would a Pope welcome Islam?
The article sets up a zero-sum, manipulative contrast: that the Vatican is rolling out the red carpet for non-Christian religions while actively persecuting and locking out traditional Catholics.
This is a false dichotomy. Engaging in diplomatic, interreligious, and peaceful dialogue with the Muslim world (as mandated by Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate) is part of the Church’s universal pastoral mission and duty to foster peace. It has nothing to do with “rejecting” traditional Catholics. Administrative decisions or restrictions regarding specific liturgies or pilgrimages are matters of internal ecclesial discipline and governance—they are not a theological endorsement of Islam over traditional Catholicism. Conflating separate governance issues into a cosmic culture war is pure rhetoric.
Then, the article quotes historical theologians (like Yves Congar or Henri de Daniélou) or utilizes Archbishop Lefebvre’s polemics to claim that the post-conciliar Church teaches indifferentism.
Yet that is incorrect, as the Church has never taught indifferentism after Vatican II. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explicitly reaffirms that Christ is the sole mediator and that salvation comes through the Church.
Ebb, I always check the articles from ragebait sites or substack conspiracy threads for accuracy and truth.
The articles you find and post are nearly always lacking in both and are purely stitched together ragebait like this one.
It starts with “is astounding to consider that, based on Bishop Schneider’s description, there could be”
So, based on one AUXILIARY bishop’s unsubstantiated statement, it says THERE COULD BE and proceeds to stitch together a whole narrative???
And you agree to that??
Then the article says “Yves Congar, found in a book published in 1987”
Really? It needs to dig up 1987 books to make up its ragebait?
The author invokes Acts 4:12 (”Neither is there salvation in any other...”) to argue that any form of interreligious dialogue implies that people can be saved outside of Christ, accusing modern churchmen of abandoning evangelization.
This is a straw man. The Catholic Church officially maintains that Jesus Christ is the sole Redeemer and that salvation comes through Christ and His Church. Engaging in diplomatic dialogue does not deny the necessity of Christ.
Well, beyond the fact that I agree with Robert Spencer, Tom Holland and Patricua Crone that the character Muhammad did not exist, but is like Robin Hood, a fictional character stitched God together from many real persons with fiction interlinked.
Besides that yes, Islam like communism had a great negative and highly evil impact on the world
Boycott “Constantinople,...they ignored that while it was happening....”
Err... what??
Have you not heard of the crusades?
Or maybe you want to restrict to 1453?
In 1453, when Sultan Mehmed II’s Ottoman forces besieged and captured Constantinople, the sitting pontiff was Pope Nicholas V. Far from ignoring the catastrophe, the Pope and the Holy See reacted with deep alarm, though systemic political and military constraints in Europe crippled their efforts
Years prior to the final siege, Pope Nicholas V had actively pushed for the union of the Catholic and Orthodox Churches—not merely for theological reasons, but to forge a unified military defense against the advancing Ottoman Empire. In exchange for financial and military aid, Emperor Constantine XI agreed to proclaim the Union of Florence at Hagia Sophia in December 1452.
To back this up, Pope Nicholas V dispatched Cardinal Isidore of Kiev as his papal legate to Constantinople, bringing a contingent of archers and financial aid funded by the Papacy to help garrison the city walls. Furthermore, the Pope urgently appealed to European monarchs, princes, and republics (such as Venice and Genoa) to launch a unified crusade and send naval fleets to relieve the besieged city.
However, the broader Western response failed. 15th-century Europe was deeply fractured: France and England were just finishing the Hundred Years’ War, the Holy Roman Empire was internally divided, and Italian city-states like Venice and Genoa were often hostile to one another and prioritized their own commercial trade treaties with the Ottomans over collective defense. As a result, no massive Western European army arrived to break the siege.
When the city fell on May 29, 1453, Pope Nicholas V was devastated. Contemporary humanists and historians recorded that the Pope fell into a deep depression, fearing posterity would blame his pontificate for the loss. His immediate successor, Pope Callixtus III, made the fight against the Ottoman advance the central objective of his pontificate, organizing fleets and trying to ignite a coalition crusade throughout the rest of the decade. The failure to save Constantinople was a failure of a divided, post-feudal Western Europe, not a lack of effort or warning from the Papacy.
Jesus declared, “I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18), designating Peter and the Apostles with visible authority to “bind and loose” (Matthew 16:19; 18:18).
Personal AND a community. Jesus left a community not a book.
Scripture explicitly forbids abandoning physical gathering: “Not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another” (Hebrews 10:25).
Paul teaches that believers are built together into an interconnected body: “Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Corinthians 12:27). An isolated “personal faith” cut off from the sacraments and the community violates the core design of the New Testament.
Maddog, Christianity is not an isolated, private philosophy like Buddhism or Jainism, rather Christ established a visible, communal Church with binding authority.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.