I will remind you of only a single one of the discourses in which you speak about the coexistence and collaboration of the religions, and I will ask you only one question concerning it: as the Judge of the Faith, can you tell us whether the speaker is still a Catholic, or whether he has denied Christ and placed himself outside the Church. Here is the text; it relates to the conflict in the Middle East and your hopes of peace:
"And We have a hope which may appear Utopian because it does not rest on any concrete basis, and may even itself represent a point of discord, but which We consider to be founded upon an argument that is solid and practical: the conflict involves three different ethnico-religious groups, all of which recognise a one and true God: the Hebrew people, the Islamic people and between them, and scattered throughout the entire world, the Christian people. These three expressions of an identical monotheism speak with the most authentic and ancient, and even the boldest and most confident, the most convinced voices. Can we not hope, therefore, that the name of the same God, instead of engendering irreconcilable opposition, may lead, rather, to mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence? Should the reference to the same God, the same Father WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS, not lead us rather one day to discover what is so evident, yet so difficult, that we are all sons of the same Father and that, therefore, we are all brothers?" (Address given at the Angelus on 9th August 1970)
Well, here is the reply: "Strange indeed, and both sad and terrifying, are the audacity and rashness of spirit of men who call themselves Catholic and dream of founding society anew in such conditions and of establishing upon earth, independently of the Catholic Church, 'the reign of justice and of love', with the help of all who come, of whatever religion or none at all, with or without beliefs, provided only that they are prepared to forget that which divides them – their religious and philosophical beliefs, and to concentrate on what unites them – a generous idealism and certain moral forces 'of whatever origin'. It is frightening... The result of such promiscuity of labour, the beneficiary of such cosmopolitan social action can only be a democracy which is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish: a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men thus finally become brothers and comrades in 'the reign of God'. 'To work no longer for the Church, but for mankind'... this is organised Apostasy." (St Pius X, Letter on the Sillon)
The reply was given by St Pius X. Whose word speaks louder in our souls – yours – or his? Which of the two is the apostate?
Your entire worldview is foreign to me. That a pope expressing hope that the major monotheistic peoples might come "to mutual respect, understanding and peaceful coexistence" is apostasy to you speaks volumes.
You and your type are absolutely bitter and uncharitable. You assume the worst in the writings of others and are quick and gleeful to rip them out of any context whatsoever, all to feed your own prejuduces.
It's very sad.
SD
You add this emphasis in an attempt to misunderstand what is being said. Contrast with your accusation:
dream of founding society anew in such conditions and of establishing upon earth, independently of the Catholic Church, 'the reign of justice and of love', with the help of all who come, of whatever religion or none at all,...
The result ... can only be a democracy which is neither Catholic, nor Protestant, nor Jewish: a religion more universal than the Catholic Church, uniting all men thus finally become brothers and comrades in 'the reign of God'. 'To work no longer for the Church, but for mankind'
You get all this from the hghlighted phrase above. And of course the "repugnant" notion that we should try to respect other people and understand them.
Pope JP II, in the phrase you highlight is not trying to establish a partnership, a "more universal" religion, etc. He is merely saying, as a reading of the words gives, that we should recognize our common fatherhood as God's children, even if we have theological differences.
Perhaps you can not go that far. That is your choice. But please don't try to highlight and selecively quote others to build up your preposterous arguments.
Go ahead and hate Muslims. Disrespect Jews. Whatever makes you feel holy.
SD