Not The First Time For "Uncle Teddy"

As is explained in part one of a two-part video that is uploading as this brief article is being written, very little time is available, at least at this point, to attend in an rapid-fire manner to the fast-breaking events that occur each day within the confines of the Never-Never Land known as the counterfeit church of conciliarism. Although more will be written later tonight to preface the videos after they have finished uploading, the work that I am doing at present precludes me from writing anything more extensive than is provided in this commentary on the latest musings of the Islamophile known as Theodore Edgar "Cardinal"  arick, formerly an auxiliary "bishop" in the Archdioese of New York, formerly the founding "bishop" of the Diocese of Metuchen, New Jersey, formerly the "archbishop" of the Archdiocese of Newark, New Jersey, and the current conciliar "archbishop-emeritus" of the Archdiocese of Washington, District of Columbia.

It was in the Spring Semester of 1988 that a student of mine in an American Government course at Saint John's University in Jamaica, Queens, New York, came up to me after one of the first classes to introduce himself as a "nephew" of "Archbishop" McCarrick. I recounted this to a presbyter-friend of mine who had been with me as a seminarian at Holy Apostles Seminary during the 1983-1984 academic year, the late Reverend Michael Scott, who died on January 9, 2011, at the age of fifty-three. "Oh," Mike said to me, "one of Teddy's 'nephews.' We all know about those." McCarrick actually got in trouble in the early-1990s when he gave a talk to some Catholic women by commenting on the sort of "day-glow" attire wore by the young men he took on trips. The then "papal" nuncio, Pio "Cardinal" Laghi, gave Teddy a slap on the wrists just prior to his, Laghi's, leaving for Rome to serve as the prefect of the conciliar Congregation of Education in 1990. Ever the supporter of the lavender agender, Teddy McCarrick went to great lengths in 2002, the year in which the American conciliar "hierarchy's" shameful record of recruiting, promoting and protecting known practitioners of perversity became more generally known than it had been prior to that time despite the efforts of The Roman Catholic Faithful, Inc., The Wanderer and even National Catholic Reporter to provide documentary evidence of the scandals, to state he did not believe that those with clear homosexual tendencies should be excluded from the conciliar presbyterate.

McCarrick was adamantly opposed to denying what puports to be Holy Communion in the Protestant and Judeo-Masonic liturgical service to Catholics in public life who support the chemical and surgical execution of the innocent preborn in their mothers' wombs and/or support the promotion of perversity under cover of the civil law. He even went so far on January 20, 1998, to host a prayer service for the Presbyterian pro-abortion Governor of New Jeresey, at the time, Christine Todd Whitman, prior to his inaguaration for a second term as the Garden State's governor (see No Big Deal, which was publishedin 1998 in the printed pages of Christ or Chaos). And it was was just prior to his retirement as the conciliar "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, on June 7, 2006, that Teddy McCarrick gave an interview to Cable News Network's Wolf Blitzer wherein he expressed support for "civil unions" for those engaged in acts of moral perversity in violation of the binding precepts of the Sixth and Ninth Commandments:

BLITZER: Another very sensitive issue that's being dealt with in the Senate right now involves a constitutional ban on same sex marriage. Senator Ted Kennedy said this yesterday. He said, "A vote for this amendment is a vote for bigotry, pure and simple." You disagree with him, don't you?

MCCARRICK: On this one, I do. Ted and I have -- do have differences from time to time. And this is a real big one. It seems to me that we really have to continue to define marriage as we've defined marriage for thousands of years as a union between a man and a woman.

Now, I think the legislation as it is proposed would not throw out the possibility of a civil union. And I think we can -- we can live with that if this is what -- if this is what the Constitution will provide for. But to say that you can take this concept of marriage, this word of marriage and use it in ways that it has never been used before, as far as I know, in the history of the world, I think that makes no sense.

BLITZER: So just explain. You think that you could live with -- you could support civil unions between gays and lesbians, but you wouldn't like them to get formally married, is that right?

MCCARRICK: Yes. I think -- I think basically the ideal would be that everybody was -- was able to enter a union with a man and a woman and bring children into the world and have the wonderful relationship of man and wife that is so mutually supportive and is really so much part of our society and what keeps our society together. That's the ideal.

If you can't meet that ideal, if there are people who for one reason or another just cannot do that or feel they cannot do that, then in order to protect their right to take care of each other, in order to take care of their right to have visitation in a hospital or something like that, I think that you could allow, not the ideal, but you could allow for that for a civil union.

But if you begin to fool around with the whole -- the whole nature of marriage, then you're doing something which effects the whole culture and denigrates what is so important for us. Marriage is the basic foundation of our family structure. And if we lose that, then I think we become a society that's in real trouble. (McCarrick on Civil Unions, June 7, 2006.)

Although McCarrick was forced to issue one of those clarifications for which the conciliar revolutionaries, including that "restorer of tradition," Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI (see, for example, If Them, Why Not Others?, Let the Olympic Games of Absurdity Begin!, Razing The Last Bastions, Nothing New Under Benedict's Sun, Words and Actions Without Consequences and Making a Mockery of Catholicism) five days after he blabbed away to Wolf Biltzer ninety-nine months ago now, he was at it again in the immediate aftermath of Jorge Mario Bergoglio's "election" eighteen months ago now (it seems more like eighteen years!), teaming up with his equally lavender-friendly successor, Donald "Cardinal" Wuerl, to support "civil unions" once again. This time, however, no "clarification" was issued as Jorge Mario Bergoglio supports the same thing:

Still, Dolan has always been viewed as a more pastoral figure than many hard-line American prelates. He has tried to steer the hierarchy on a politically realistic course, even when he's eagerly taken on the White House on issues such as the Obamacare mandate for employers to provide free contraceptive insurance coverage.

Christopher Hale, co-founder of the Millennial blog for young Catholics and an adviser for President Obama's re-election campaign, said he's had constructive exchanges with Dolan, and said Dolan's office had responded positively to Hale's March 26 Washington Post column that urged the very kind of pastoral shift on gays that Dolan seemed to adopt.

Hale also cited a Religion News Service column by Michael O'Loughlin calling for a shift in emphasis that he said Dolan's office also appreciated. "I know he listens," Hale said of Dolan. "I know he has his finger to the wind on this issue" of the church's attitude towards gays and lesbians.

Other leaders apparently do as well.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, and his predecessor, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, were also on Sunday morning news shows addressing the issue of gay rights and stressing that the Catholic Church needed to be welcoming. As McCarrick put it, the church could be open to civil unions as an alternative to gay marriage.

Interestingly, it's the same approach Francis tried to take in Argentina, voicing support among Argentine bishops for civil unions against a national bid to allow gay marriage. He ultimately lost both battles.

Church officials insist that the Catholic bishops have always taken a "hate the sin, love the sinner" approach, and that the positive comments by Dolan and other churchmen are nothing new.

"A disagreement on the definition of marriage is a serious disagreement. It is not, however, separation from the love of God," Sister Mary Ann Walsh, a spokeswoman for the USCCB, wrote in a blog post.

Yet that's not the message many bishops had been sending. During the 2012 presidential campaign, a number of bishops said that those who support civil marriage for gays should be barred from Communion, and Dolan and other bishops cast the battle over gay marriage, and against Obama, in almost apocalyptic terms.

Other church leaders used especially harsh language to describe gays and lesbians, and some barred children from attending Catholic schools because their parents are gay. Many also equated support for civil marriage for gays with support for abortion, an action that is grounds for automatic excommunication.

As Dolan himself conceded on Easter, though, the bishops "try our darnedest to make sure we're not an anti-anybody," but up to now "we haven't been too good at that."

While gay rights activists in the Catholic Church welcomed the change of tone as "nothing short of an Easter miracle," in the words of Francis DeBernardo of New Ways Ministry, church leaders also stress that they aren't softening their opposition to same-sex marriage.

At most, it appears that some leaders could be open to favoring civil unions or some alternative to gay marriage — an option that may not even be on the table anymore. Another strategy: shifting the focus from blistering opposition to gays and lesbians to ensuring that religious freedom and conscience rights are respected in future gay rights laws.

That itself could be significant, though it's not clear whether that will be enough to alter the dynamic that has built up in recent years. To be sure, the hierarchy will also face strong calls from its right flank to take a more vocal stand against gay rights.

"Why aren't their (Catholic) bishops appearing on the tube with David Gregory and Piers Morgan to defend the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman?" Michael Reagan wrote in a March 28 column at the conservative news site, Townhall.com.

"Like the bank executives that are too chicken to stand up to the federal bullies in Washington, and like the energy company bosses in California who won't stand up to the Green Socialists in Sacramento, the churches cower in fear," Reagan wrote.

Dolan didn't give up the doctrinal ship in his recent appearance on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. He spoke to gay men and lesbians saying, in part, "... we want your happiness... and you're entitled to friendship.' But the church does not see them as entitled to married love.

And Wuerl brought that point home in his Fox News Sunday appearance. He told Chris Wallace:

"The only thing I worry about is someone saying to me, 'You, because you believe that sex is intended for marriage and because you believe that marriage is indissoluble and because you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that somehow you don't belong here, that somehow this is bigotry or this is hate speech.' That's what I worry about. There has to be room enough in a society as large, as free as pluralistic as America to make space for all of us." (Is Conciliar shift on practioners of moral perversity substance or style? See also Giving Unto Caesar What Belongs To God Alone.)

It is not the purpose of this commentary to belabor points made so many times before about "civil unions." It is my purpose, though, to demonstrate that Theodore Edgar McCarrick is, as a true son of the conciliar revolution and completely faithful sidekick even in retirement of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, is as bereft of the Catholic Faith as the Argentine Apostate, which is why he, McCarrick, can blaspheme God just as easily as have each of the conciliar "popes," including "Saint John Paul II" (hey, his "feast day" is coming up on October 22, 2014!) and Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI and, of course, Bergoglio himself:

Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick offered Islamic religious phrases and insisted that Islam shares foundational rules with Christianity, during a Sept. 10 press conference in D.C.

“In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate,” McCarrick said as he introduced himself to the audience at a meeting arranged by the Muslim Public Affairs Council. That praise of the Islamic deity is an important phrase in Islam, is found more than 100 times in the Koran, and is akin to the Catholic prayer, ”In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

McCarrick next claimed that “Catholic social teaching is based on the dignity of the human person… [and] as you study the holy Koran, as you study Islam, basically, this is what Muhammad the prophet, peace be upon him, has been teaching.”

McCarrick was 71 when 19 Muslims brought Islam to the public eye by murdering 3,000 Americans on 9/11. He is one of the 213 Cardinals of the Catholic church, but is too old to vote in church debates.

“Either the cardinal has studied the whole thing and does not know what he’s talking about, or he is making a somewhat misleading statement,” said Michael Meunier, head of the U.S. Copts Association. “The practice of the Muslim majority people that adhere to the Koran… have proven that [claim of equivalence] is not correct,” he told The Daily Caller during a Sept. 11 trip to Jordan.

“Has Cardinal McCarrick converted to Islam?” asked a scornful critic, Robert Spencer, the best-selling author of many books on Islam.

“‘Peace be upon him’ is a phrase Muslims utter after they say the name of [their reputed] prophet… [so] probably he is unaware of the unintended Islamic confession of faith he has just made,”said Spencer, who runs the Jihadwatch.org website.

McCarrick is wrong to say “that Islam teaches the dignity of every human person,“ Spencer said. “Actually it teaches a sharp dichotomy between the Muslims, [who are called] ‘the best of people’ and the unbelievers [are called] ‘the most vile of created beings,’” Spencer told TheDC.

“The Koran also says: ‘Muhammad is the apostle of Allah. Those who follow him are merciful to one another, harsh to the unbelievers,’” Spencer said.

The same warning came from Archbishop Amel Nona, who was head of Chaldean Catholic Archeparch of Mosul in Iraq. In a August comment made to Europeans, he said that “You think all men are equal, but that is not true: Islam does not say that all men are equal  [and] your values are not their values.”

“If you do not understand this soon enough, you will become the victims of the [immigrant] enemy you have welcomed in your home,” said Nona, who is now exiled — along with surviving Chaldean Catholics — in the Kurdish city of Erbil.

Islamic societies have routinely persecuted non-Muslims, including Christian Armenians in Turkey and Christian Copts in Egypt, said Taniel Koushakjian, a spokesman for the Armenian National Committee of America.

During the First World War, more that 1.5 million Armenians were deliberately killed by Turkey’s Islamic government, he said.

In Egypt, Copts “seem to bear the brunt of the persecution… [which] comes from the religious divide [and] is an interpretation of the theology in which people who are not of the same [Islamic] belief are cast out as infidels, as unrighteous,” he said.

The Islamic Society of North America says Islam “recognize[s] plurality in human societies, including religious plurality.” The section of the Koran that endorses plurality, it is claimed, include verses 10:19, 11:118 and 11.19.

“Mankind was not but one community [united in religion], but [then] they differed. And if not for a word that preceded from your Lord, it would have been judged between them [immediately] concerning that over which they differ,” says verse 10:19, which ISNA says shows Islam’s tolerance for other religions.

The Koran has some welcoming messages, but they’re from Islam’s early period, Meunier said. “When Islam became strong and had a strong army, the tougher verses came down from heaven — apparently — and according to Islamic teaching, those later verses abrogate the earlier verses [so] moderate Muslims have an uphill battle saying Islam is tolerant.”

“We have to encourage moderate Muslims to present a more moderate version of Islam and the Koran,” but they’re outgunned by Saudi clerics who have used petrodollars to make Islam tougher and less tolerant, he said.

But the Saudi clerics “won’t do it [because] they don’t believe in it,” he added.

For Muslims, the Koran is the unimpeachable transcript of commands from Allah, the single and all-powerful deity. Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated by an angel to Islam’s final prophet, Mohammad, 1,400 years ago. This rigidity sharply constrains Muslims’ use of alternative ideas, including elements of Christianity, or secular ethics and philosophy.

The Koran also include many passage urging the use of violence. “The penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land,” says Verse 33 of the Koran’s fifth book.

In contrast, the Christian Bible, including the almost-2,000 year-old New Testament, is based on the statements of witnesses. For example, Matthew the disciple provide the main account of the Beatitudes sermon, which includes the famous lines, “Blessed are the merciful, for they shall be shown mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the sons of God.”

The Christians’ reliance on witnesses allowed perpetual debate over the meaning and purpose of words from the twinned deity of Jesus and God, and it also allowed a Christian search for evidence of God via the “natural sciences,” that gradually created modern science. Christianity also endorsed separate roles for church and state, where Islam assumes that states’ laws comply with Koranic rules.

McCarrick, however, blended the two distinct religions in his comments at the press club.

“We are together on this against evil, we are against killing, we are against destruction… God bless you in this work you do,” McCarrick said to the Muslim speakers, which included representatives from one group — the Islamic Society of North America — that was implicated in a conspiracy to smuggle funds to the Hamas terror group that recently launched another bombardment of thousands of rockets at Israeli Jews.

“We believe that Islam is a religion which helps people, not kills them… the Muslim community has always taught this,” McCarrick said.

“I’m privileged to be able to lend my voice to the voice of many of my friends here,” he said about the Sept. 10 meeting, which was designed to help U.S.-based Islamic groups avoid the public disgust with The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Since early this year, the Islamic State group has killed and murdered thousands of Iraqis that don’t accept rule by the brutal Salafi variant of Islam. The victims include Shia Muslims, Christians and adherents of the pre-Christian Yazidi religion. Tens of thousands of non-Muslims have also been driven from their homes and fields.

McCarrick, however, downplayed ISIS’s attack on Christians in Iraq, and expressed more concerns for Muslim victims of ISIS attacks. “The truth of the matter is in these terrible massacres of the Islamic state, most of the victims have been Muslims, most of them have not been Christians,” he told his Sept. 10 audience.

“Many Christians, obviously, have suffered, so I am here to say that we stand with our brothers and sisters in the Muslim community, who here in the United States have been giving leadership in a very strong way,” he declared.

“They are proud to be Americans… they love America,” he said, without retuning to discuss the fate of his fellow Christians under Muslim rule.

Spencer urged McCarrick to challenge his Muslim hosts. “Cardinal McCarrick, rather than indulge in this fond and ignorant wishful thinking, would have done better to have challenged his Muslim friends to match their lofty words with real action to combat the Islamic State and other Muslim persecutors of Christians,” Spencer said.

McCarrick should have “asked them to institute programs in mosques and Islamic schools to teach against the literal meaning of the verses I quoted above and others like them, so that they no longer incite Muslims to violence,” in the U.S. or abroad, Spencer said.  (Mufti Teddy Embraces Mohammdanism.)

Apart from the patent apostasy represented by McCarrick's Islamophlic remarks, the former "archbishop" of Washington, District of Columbia, and "uncle" to an endless array of "nephews" over the years demonstrated himself to be a complete fool when stating that more Mohammedans than Christians have been killed by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria. More Mohammedans have been killed because there are more of them in Iraq and Syria than Christians, whose numbers as a proportion of the population in these two countries, have been decimated as a result of the complete and total fidelity of ISIS to the blasphemous Koran from which Mufit Teddy read yesterday, September 11, 2014, the Feast of Saints Protus and Hyacinth.

Alas, my friends, this is nothing new for "Uncle" or Mufti Teddy McCarrick. Nothing new at all, which is why it is helpful to have something of a memory of past events. Here is what Teddy McCarrick said in the presence of Jordanian King Abdullah on September 13, 2005, nine years ago now, at The Catholic University of America in Washington, District of Columbia:

Your Majesty,

A few months ago, when I was privileged to pray for you on another occasion in this capital city, I asked Allah, the compassionate and merciful Lord of all the world, to bless you and to help you make your country a bridge across which all nations might walk in unity, fellowship and love.  As I listened to your words today, I believe my prayer is being answered. 

Indeed, the Amman Message of November of last year is a blueprint and a challenge not only to the great world of Islam, but to the whole human race.  Your thoughtful leadership is a stirring invitation to all of us, especially to the people of the Book, the family of Abraham, who share so much and who are called to be brothers and sisters in God’s one human family.

You have taken to heart the words of Pope Benedict XVI when he addressed the Muslim leaders gathered with him in Germany last month and invited them all to join him in eliminating from all hearts any trace of rancor, in resisting every form of intolerance and in opposing every manifestation of violence.  As you quoted in your splendid talk to us today, Pope Benedict called his listeners, in this way, to turn back the way of cruel fanaticism that endangers the lives of so many people and hinders progress for world peace.

Your Majesty’s call and that of the Holy Father are in so many ways the same.  May Allah, the merciful and compassionate, continue to guide your steps along this noble path.  May He guide and protect you, your family and your beloved country and may peace and justice come to all lands and all peoples through your efforts, your vision and your courage.

In the name of Allah, the merciful and compassionate God, we pray.  Amen.

The original link for the text above, which was posted on the website of The Catholic University of America's Public Affairs website, disappeared within twenty-four hours of news about this act of apostasy became public. I have the text in Thou Shalt Not Have Strange Gods Before Me, which was published about eight months or so before I began to write about the plausbility of sedevacantism, and it can be found as well on the Free Republic website, McCarrick's Remarks to Abdullah II of Jordan, and on something called "Sermon Index," McCarrick Publicly Prays To Allah. Both sites have links to the aforementioned Public Affairs website of The Catholic University of America. Those links, however, did not work within a short period of time after the remark were posted. A story on the Catholic World News website about this act of apostasy was also taken down. There will be "taking down" "Uncle Teddy's" latest foray into his fantasy land of Islamophilia as not act of apostasy and no amount of blasphemy can arouse the anger of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, who is himself a complete Islamophile.

Then again, as I noted in those videos that are being uploaded at this time, there is no space betweeen Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Joseph Alois Ratzinger:

November 30, 2005: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI entered into the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey, taking off his shoes so as to symbolize that he was in a "holy place" and then turned in the direction of Mecca at the behest of his Mohammedan "host," who instructed him to assume the Mohammedan prayer position as they "prayed" together. God is offended by honor being given to such a false religion as the souls of His faithful Catholics are scandalized and bewildered and confused as a consequence.

Ratzinger at the Blue Mosque

May 8-15, 2009: Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI visits Jordan and Israel, making the following incredible statements while there:

Places of worship, like this splendid Al-Hussein Bin Talal mosque named after the revered late King, stand out like jewels across the earth’s surface. From the ancient to the modern, the magnificent to the humble, they all point to the divine, to the Transcendent One, to the Almighty. And through the centuries these sanctuaries have drawn men and women into their sacred space to pause, to pray, to acknowledge the presence of the Almighty, and to recognize that we are all his creatures. (Speech to Muslim religious leaders, members of the Diplomatic Corps and Rectors of universities in Jordan in front of the mosque al-Hussein bin Talal in Amman)

Ratzinger/Benedict at the Mosque Al-Hussein bin Talal, Amman, Jordan, Saturday, May 9, 2009.

I cordially thank the Grand Mufti, Muhammad Ahmad Hussein, together with the Director of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, Sheikh Mohammed Azzam al-Khatib al-Tamimi, and the Head of the Awquaf Council, Sheikh Abdel Azim Salhab, for the welcome they have extended to me on your behalf. I am deeply grateful for the invitation to visit this sacred place, and I willingly pay my respects to you and the leaders of the Islamic community in Jerusalem. (Courtesy visit to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the Mount of the Temple, since when is a place of false worship "sacred" to the true God of Divine Revelation?)

Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI entering the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, Wednesday, May 12, 2009. Note that the false "pontiff" has taken off his shoes once again.

Saints gave up their lives rather than to give even the appearance of such apostasy.

God of all the ages, on my visit to Jerusalem, the “City of Peace”, spiritual home to Jews, Christians and Muslims alike, I bring before you the joys, the hopes and the aspirations, the trials, the suffering and the pain of all your people throughout the world.

God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, hear the cry of the afflicted, the fearful, the bereft; send your peace upon this Holy Land, upon the Middle East, upon the entire human family; stir the hearts of all who call upon your name, to walk humbly in the path of justice and compassion.

“The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul that seeks him” (Lam 3:25)! (Prayer at the Western Wall, May 12, 2009; one will note, of course, that there is not one reference to Our Blessed Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.)

What's that about a picture being worth a thousand words?

The appendix below reprises information of what it is be faithful to the blasphemous Koran, and the members of ISIS are being completely faithful to their false religion as they kill Catholics and other Christians while the likes Mufti Teddy and Soccer Mom Jorge speak of "dialogue" and heap praise on a religion founded in bloodshed and has spread in like manner for the past fourteen hundred years. Then again, leaders of one false religion, conciliarism, have great respect for the "doctrines" of other false religions. It's just a matter of "professional courtesy."

May we have recourse to the Holy Name of Mary, which we invoke with love one hundred fifty-three times when we pray the three sets of her Most Holy Rosary, whose power was invoked by Pope Saint Pius V to defeat the Mohammedan Turks in the Battle of Lepanto on October 7, 1571, and which was prayed by the Catholic forces under the command of King John Sobieski of Poland on this very day three hundred thirty-one years ago as he defeat the Mohammedan Turks in the Battle of the Gates of Vienna. 

Tomorrow, September 13, 2014, is the ninety-seventh anniversary of Our Lady's fifth and next-to-last apparition in the Cova da Iria near Fatima, Portugal, to Jacinta and Francisco Marto and Lucia dos Santos. Our Lady remind the three young shepherd children to keep praying their Rosaries:

"Continue to pray the Rosary in order to obtain the end of the war. In October Our Lord will come, as well as Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world. God is pleased with your sacrifices. He does not want you to sleep with the rope on, but only to wear it during the daytime."

Lucia then began to put forward the petitions for cures, to be told: "Yes, I will cure some, but not others. In October I will perform a miracle so that all may believe." (Our Lady's Words at Fatima.)

Our Lady's Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart will triumph over the likes of Jorge Mario Bergoglio, Joseph Alois Ratzinger and Theodore Edgar McCarrick et al. All we have to do is suffer the chastisements of the moment in reparation for our sins and those of the whole world as the consecrated slaves through the same Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

It is just up to us to cooperate with graces that Our Lady sends to us to do so.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Ave Maria!

Our Lady of the Rosary, pray for us.

Saint Joseph, pray for us.

Saints Peter and Paul, pray for us.

Saint John the Baptist, pray for us.

Saint Gabriel the Archangel, pray for us, especially on your feast day today!

Saint Raphael the Archangel, pray for us.

Saints Joachim and Anne, pray for us.

Saints Caspar, Melchior, and Balthasar, pray for us.

Appendix A

Mohammed, the First "Radical" Mohammedan

It was in Medina that Muhammad attained power and transformed Islam from a relatively benign form of monotheism into an militant expansionary political ideology that persists to this day. In Medina we see a very different Muhammad and a very different concept of Islam and a very different Allah. Here Muhammad gradually became radicalized in accordance with the commands of God and became a political ruler and military commander. The Allah of Medina guided his prophet to become a warlord, seeking military conquests. In Medina, Muhammad used the threat of the sword to compel people to embrace Islam. Gone was message of verse 2:256: Let There Be In Compulsion In Religion. It was replaced by such teachings as 9:5, 9:29:

(1) Fight the unbelievers until religion is for Allah only:

"And fight them until there is no more fitnah (disbelief and polytheism, i.e. worshiping others besides Allah) and the religion (worship) will all be for Allah alone (in the whole world). But if they cease (worshiping others besides Allah) then certainly, Allah is All-Seer of what they do." (Sura 8.39).

(2) No more choice in religion

• As for him who opposes the messenger, after the guidance has been pointed out to him, and follows other than the believers' way, we will direct him in the direction he has chosen, and commit him to Hell; what a miserable destiny! [4:115]

• Then should they turn back (meaning: apostized), seize them and kill them wherever you find them; and do not take from them any companion or supporter (Quran, Chapter 4: 89)

(3) No more patience with unbelievers. Now must curse them:

• [22.72] When Our Clear Signs are rehearsed to them, thou wilt notice a denial on the faces of the Unbelievers! they nearly attack with violence those who rehearse Our Signs to them. Say, "Shall I tell you of something (far) worse than these Signs? It is the Fire (of Hell)! Allah has promised it to the Unbelievers! and evil is that destination!"

• [33:57] Surely, those who oppose GOD and His messenger, GOD afflicts them with a curse in this life, and in the Hereafter; He has prepared for them a shameful retribution.

(4) Tolerance no more; coerce the kafirs:

• "In order that Allah may separate the pure from the impure, put all the impure ones [i.e. non-Muslims] one on top of another in a heap and cast them into hell. They will have been the ones to have lost." (Sura 8.37)

• Certainly! Allâh will admit those who believe (in the Oneness of Allâh Islâmic Monotheism) and do righteous good deeds, to Gardens under which rivers flow (Paradise), while those who disbelieve enjoy themselves and eat as cattle eat, and the Fire will be their abode. 47:12

(5) No more pacifism. Time to terrorize, torture, murder:

The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom (5:33)

"Allah revealed His will to the angels, saying: 'I shall be with you. Give courage to the believers. I shall cast terror into the hearts of the infidels. Strike off their heads, strike off the very tips of their fingers!' That was because they defied Allah and His apostle. He that defies Allah and his apostle shall be sternly punished by Allah." (Sura 8.12-13)

(6) No tolerance for critics. Just kill them:

9.061 Among them are men who molest the Prophet and say, "He is (all) ear." Say, "He listens to what is best for you: he believes in Allah, has faith in the Believers, and is a Mercy to those of you who believe." But those who molest the Messenger will have a grievous penalty. (In the link 'leaving Islam' you will find many events where Muhammad had numerous critics murdered )

(7) Do not associate even with your parents and siblings if they reject Islam:

9.023 O ye who believe! take not for protectors your fathers and your brothers if they love infidelity above Faith: if any of you do so, they do wrong

(8) Time to cursed who reject Islam for eternity

• 9:73 O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites! Be harsh with them. Their ultimate abode is hell, a hapless journey's end.

• 22:19 These twain (the believers and the disbelievers) are two opponents who contend concerning their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, garments of fire will be cut out for them; boiling fluid will be poured down on their heads [103, Medina ]

• 22:20 Whereby that which is in their bellies, and their skins too, will be melted; [103, Medina ]

• 22:21 And for them are hooked rods of iron. [103, Medina ]

• 22:22 Whenever, in their anguish, they would go forth from thence they are driven back therein and (it is said unto them): Taste the doom of burning.

Muhammad's 13 years of preaching in Mecca was out and out a failure, mastering only 100-dd followers. Had he continued walking the same path in Medina, Islam would have died a natural death, probably in his life-time itself. But the militant radicalization of Muhammad that changed Islam into a plundering Mafia enterprise, offering its prospective followers a share of the loot and captured women, as well as forcing those who would reject Islam to embrace it on the pain of death, that Islam became a lasting and expanding successful religious enterprise as it continues today.

In Medina Muhammad re-invented Allah and turned Him into a criminal Godfather Whom Muhammad would use to hand over earthly political power to him, and utilize His supposed teachings as religious and legal justification for his evil criminality. That is how Islam turned itself into a successful cult.

Abrogation: The complete and ultimate radicalization of Islam and its followers

Most Muslims are like ordinary people, and the Mecca part of the Quranic revelations could offer them a peace basis of religious life. But Allah did not leave that option open to them. The radical Muhammad of Medina faced a huge problem with the initial non-militant teachings of the Quran. Had his followers appealed to those nonviolent teachings of the Quran, his desire for plunder, power and dominion could not be realized. And Allah, ever ready to satisfy Muhammad's every desire, came to his rescue by abrogating the entire Mecca teachings of the Quran:

• Quran 2:106. “Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

• Quran 16:101 “And when We change (one) communication for (another) communication, and Allah knows best what He reveals.”

This abrogation doctrine nullifies the earlier teachings, namely the pacifist Meccan revelations by the radicalized and militant later revelations of Medina, which turns Islam into an absolutely radical and militant religious faith. It gave Muslims no option to appeal to the apparently peaceful verses revealed in Mecca. For a detailed listing of the verses of the Quran that were canceled by the doctrine of abrogation, go to http://www.islamreform.net/new-page-27.htm.

Through the process of aborgation, 71 Suras of the Quran out of 114 in total, i.e. 62.28% of the suras of the Quran, have become null and void (Abu Ja'afar al Nakhass' al Nasikh wal Mansukh'). Therefore, only 43 later Surahs revealed in Medina stand valid. And this valid part of Islam teaches Muslims only deceit, torture, murder, assassination, massacre, genocide, pillage, robbery, enslavement and rape as divinely sanction halal (legal) acts that would earn Muslims a ticket to Islamic paradise, as long as those are perpetrated upon kafirs.

In sum, Muhammad initiated Islam as a relatively benign and nonviolent religious faith, but as he grew in power, he radicalized it into an evil ideology whose sole purpose is to conquer the world for Allah. The Quran became a declaration of war against the kafirs. This war is permanent until ALL kafirs have converted to Islam, or are in dhimmitude (institutionalized discrimination akin to second class slavery status) or have been murdered.

From a humble preacher, Muhammad, after turning into a radical, went on order more than 60 raids and invasion, some involving massacres, and he personally participated in 27 of those. The worst sufferer of Muhammad's militant radicalization was the Jews of the Arab Peninsula, who suffered whole-sale exile, execution and enslavement. Some of the most chilling utterances of Muhammad concerning the Jews are:

...the Apostle of Allah said, “Kill any Jew that falls into your power.” (Ibn Ishaq, Life of Muhammad, p. 553)

Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar: Allah's Apostle said, "You (i.e. Muslims) will fight with the Jews till some of them will hide behind stones. The stones will (betray them) saying, 'O 'Abdullah (i.e. slave of Allah)! There is a Jew hiding behind me; so kill him.” (Bukhari 4:52:176)

And the radicalization of Muhammad saw its climax in the Massacre of Banu Quraiza, where he ordered the beheading of 600 to 900 men, and personally initiated the slaughter by beheading 2 Jewish leaders. To read about this very great Banu Quraiza tragedy, go to: http://www.islamreform.net/new-page-209.htm

Therefore, the so-called self-radicalization of Muslims is nothing but their following the teachings and commands of the holy Quran and emulating the examples of Prophet Muhammad, the only perfect man ever to appear on the earth.  (Mohammed,  the First Radical Muslim.)

Appendix B

(Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, by Raymond Taouck.)

From a purely objective point of view, regardless of the doctrinal teaching professed by Mohammedans and Catholics, it is evident that Almighty God is the God over both. God exists. His existence is not dependent on the acknowledgement of mankind that He exists. Nor is God's existence dependent upon any religion. He is the Creator and the Providence of the Universe: the whole of creation, the entire cosmos, of all existing things, whether they be angels, human beings, animals or plants, animate or inanimate. He is also the Savior and the Judge of the living and the dead, having redeemed mankind and must judge Catholics and Mohammedans, believers and atheists. Their god is but another strange god. On every essential point concerning the true God and the nature of the true God, the Mohammedan belief radically and seriously conflicts with the established and revealed Dogma of the Catholic Church.

Subjectively:

Again from a purely subjective thinking the Muslims might think and believe with a firm confidence that they are worshiping the true God, "Allah" yet the reality is quite the contrary as objectively speaking we can only affirm the contrary. This point is clear from Scripture "Whosoever does not continue in the doctrine of Christ does not have God". - II St. Jn 1:9

The teaching and the beliefs of Catholicism and Mohammedanism are different and contrary. Their concept of, and their approach to God, diverge and conflict. Catholics indeed accept as dogmatic truth the Holy Trinity, the Incarnation and the Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Moslems vehemently and vociferously deny the Blessed Trinity [2], the Incarnation [3], the Crucifixion of our Divine Lord and the Divinity of Christ [4]. The Mohammedans have such a carnal notion of heaven that St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to declare "The Mohammedan Paradise, is only fit for beasts; for filthy sensual pleasure is all the believer has to expect there." [5]

The Catholic and Christian God is 'The Trinity,' and our Lord Jesus Christ, the second Person of that Trinity, is the Creator and One true and merciful God. Despite monotheistic appearances, we do not have the same God; we do not have the same mediator. How then can it be that " together with us they (The Moslems) adore the one, merciful God." [6] This is incredible!

The Catholic Teaching: "Without faith it is impossible to please God." - Heb. 11:6

Mohammedans are infidels for "broadly speaking, infidels are those who do not possess the true faith; while in the strict sense infidels are the un-baptized"[7]. They are divided into monotheists (Jews and Moslems), polytheists (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.), and atheists.

From a Catholic perspective the Islamic worship is another form of false worship given to a "strange god" for as we read in scripture "All the gods of the Nations are Idols" - I Para 16:26

It would be blasphemous to declare that these false religions are the working of God. On the Contrary ''all faithful disciples of Jesus Christ well know that the false religions are only instruments of the devil to deceive souls and place them beyond Salvation" - [8a]

Pope Pius X long ago put forward that the modernist if they take logically there doctrine, would have no grounds for denying the Muslims there "experience" of " god" as being just as valid as that of another "believer" and hence he states:

"Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? [8b]

What a prophetic insight, Pope Pius X was so accurate that not even the Modernist came to deny what he stated, but only affirm the above with great audacity.

The Baltimore Catechism (No. 3) states as follows:

Q. 1148. How do we offer God false worship?

A. We offer God false worship by rejecting the religion He has instituted and following one pleasing to ourselves, with a form of worship He has never authorized, approved or sanctioned.

Islam clearly comes under the notion of false worship that (objectively speaking) is not render to God.

The psalmist tells us that "All the Gods of the Gentiles are Devils" (Psalm 96:5) and hence to whom do they render their worship? The Scriptures tell us clearly " They provoked him by strange gods, and stirred him up to anger, with their abominations. They sacrificed to devils and not to God: to gods whom they knew not: that were newly come up, whom their fathers worshipped not. " (Deut 32:16- 17 Cf. also Baruch 4:7)

They "sacrificed to devils and not to God" - regardless of whether or not they might have believed they were rendering homage to the True God, the reality is quite the contrary! It is an erroneous proposition to qualify a prayer addressed to the devil as authentic prayer.

Islam is a false Religion. A false religion is any non-Christian religion "in so far as it is not the religion that God revealed and wants to see practiced. Moreover, every non-Catholic Christian sect is false in so far as it neither accepts nor faithfully practices the entire content of Revelation." [9]

Christ tells us who the true worshipers shall be: "But the hour cometh and now is, when the true adorers shall adore the Father in spirit and in truth." (Jn. 4:23).

These words go directly against the terminology now used by the modernist hierarchy. They speak from a subjective position wishing to dogmatize and "opinion" which goes directly against the mind of the Church on this point.

This religious subjectivism, which she has always condemned under the names of indifferentism or latitudinarianism, and which "seeks to justify itself under the pretended claims of liberty, failing to recognize the rights of objective truth which are made manifest either by the lights of reason or by Revelation." [10]

This subjectivism only leads to that Religious indifferentism, which is "one of the most deleterious heresies" and which "places all religions on an equal footing," inevitably leads one to consider the truth of religious belief as merely a matter of utility for a well-regulated life.... "One ends by considering religion as an entirely individual thing which can be adapted to the dispositions of each one, letting everyone form his own personal religion, and by concluding that all the religions are good even though they contradict each other." [11]

The Church is not concerned with the subjective dispositions of men. This is for God to Judge. The Church is concerned with objective facts. Her judgments are objective. Pope St. Pius X, for this reason declared that "those who die as infidels are damned." [11a]

1907 “In answer to a question as to whether Confucius could have been saved,wrote:’It is not allowed to affirm that Confucius was saved. Christians, when interrogated, must answer that those who die as infidels are damned.’ ”

Revelation is a reality, a fact, a truth accredited by God by sure signs. This revelation of God can in no way be placed on the same footing as those erroneous beliefs of infidels. We may say that the Mohammedans worship a false god, the god of their own making, which a deviation from the right worship of the true God.

Further we might rightly ask with St. Paul, "How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed?" - Rom 10: 14

Although the modern terminology used might not seem to be "explicitly heretical" in nevertheless leads one down this path to apostasy. This vague terminology, which has been employed to put forward an erroneous notion of the faith so that we may be deceived along the path of syncretism. Yves Marsaudon, in his book Ecumenism as seen by a Traditional Freemason, commented favorably on the ecumenism that was nurtured at Vatican II. He said:

"Catholics and especially the conservatives must not forget that all roads lead to God. And they will have to accept that this courageous idea of free-thinking, which we can really call a revolution, pouring forth from our Masonic lodges has spread magnificently over the dome of Saint Peter’s." [12]

This is precisely path of deception to which the enemies of the Church hope to direct her. For this reason St. Pius X, who could see where this disorientation in precise terminology was leading, required every would-be Catholic priest to recite the following words at the feet of his Ordinary:

"I condemn and reject premises from which it follows that dogmas are either false or doubtful". [13]

The Council of Florence, clearly sets down the four notes of heresy as follows:

1) a pertinacious adherence to teachings expressly contradictory to that which has been defined by the Church;

2) an opinion opposed to a doctrine not explicitly defined by the Church nor clearly proposed dogmatically as an article of Faith;

3) a proposition that, although not directly contradictory to the Faith, nonetheless necessarily entails logical consequences against it; and

4) a speculation which reaches a certain degree of probability of being against the Faith.

The Modernist's in using these subjective terms to formulate their erroneous notions that "We together with the Muslims worship the same God" go directly against the above statements of the Council of Florence. This formulation works directly against the Churches dogma "Outside the Church there is No Salvation" [14]

Pope Leo XIII, affirms in his encyclical "Satis Cognitum": "Nothing is more dangerous than the heretics who, while conserving almost all the remainder of the Church's teaching intact, corrupt with a single word, like a drop of poison, the purity and the simplicity of the faith which we have received through tradition from God and through the Apostles."

Although it is true to say that the reason that those outside the Church are not saved is not purely because they worship a false 'god' nevertheless there is still a clear connection. When Christ states, "No one comes to the Father but through me" (Jn. 14:6), this precisely means, if you don't posses Christ, you can't posses the Father (God) for Christ is that door to the Father. Hence without Christ there is no salvation from God. The relation is evident. Again this is confirmed by St. Irenaeus who wrote, "Thus, without the Holy Spirit, we cannot see the Word of God; and without the Son no one can go to the Father." [15a]

The only authentic prayer is true prayer addressed to the true God. Pope Leo XIII declares without hesitation that "the fitting and devout worship of God, which is to be found chiefly in the divine sacrifice and in the dispensation of the sacraments, as well as salutary laws and discipline . . . The (Catholic) Church alone offers to the human race that religion" [15b]

Pope Pius XI declares the same saying that "In her (the Catholic Church) alone is Christ believed with a faith whole and entire, worshiped with sincere homage of adoration, and loved with the constant flame of ardent Charity" [15c]

What happened to the 1st Commandment?

I am the Lord thy God...Thou shalt not have strange gods before me....Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them..." (Ex. 20:2-5).

If all religions worship the true God by simply claiming to be doing so, then one could not violate the 1st Commandment since all worship of any “god” would be tantamount to worshiping the true "God" according to the post the modernist element in the hierarchy, yet this would not only render the 1st Commandment obsolete but make it seem as though God had given us and absurd command. God does not command anything in vain.

The first commandment is not optional. A man cannot worship in any way that which he does not believe in, for the Law of Praying determines the law of believing, and vice-versa. If Mohammedans believe in a one-person deity, that is what they worship, and in no way can we logically argue that they worship with us the Holy Trinity.

We are not unfamiliar with the notion that claims that they implicitly worship the trinity, yet we cannot maintain this from an objective stand point for the simple reason that we can not hold that one worships implicitly what he explicitly rejects.

In our day and age it is often too easily forgotten that all non-Catholic worship is offensive to God and clearly violates the first commandment. This is because the "first commandment may be broken by giving to a creature the honor which belongs to God alone or by false worship." [16a]

The Church has always regarded the worship of Non Catholics as mere acts of superstitions since "there are four kinds of superstition, namely, illegitimate worship of the true God, idolatry, divination, and superstitious practices. The first consists in a false worship, though applied to the living God; for instance, if you worship Him (God) according to the Mosaic law, which is contrary to all the precepts of the Gospel; or if you adopt a new religion in opposition to the doctrine if the universal Church." [16b] Hence it is clear that "any public worship of the true God, outside the Catholic Church constitutes a superstitious worship of God as no other Church is authorized to give public worship to God. [16c]

Religion has an intellectual foundation, that is, it is based on knowledge. To be true religion its basis must be truth. The basis must be true both speculatively and practically. In other words, true religion must be based on a correct knowledge of God as existing and worthy of all honor, and of the manner and obligation of worshipping Him. On the other hand, religion is false if what is not God is considered to be God, and worshipped as God, or if there is error in the worship of the true God. Therefore, God is not truly worshipped when erroneous signs are used in His worship, as those of the Jews, or when superfluous ceremonies are employed, as by pagans and may heretics. [16d]

Although subjectively, it is the virtue of religion which prompts a man to render to God the worship and reverence that is His by right. [16e]

It is to be noted that an act based on a false religion cannot be really an act of virtue. For a virtue requires a morally good work. But in the cult (worship) of a false god, or in the false and superstitious worship of the true God, there can be no moral goodness, since such worship is opposed to right reason. [16f]

St. Pope Pius X, truly the Pope of our Age, could see where such absurd reason of the Modernists was leading the Church as he affirmed:

"... a great movement of apostasy being organized in every country for the establishment of a One-World Church which shall have neither dogmas, nor hierarchy, nor discipline for the mind, nor curb for the passions, and which, under the pretext of freedom and human dignity, would bring back to the world the reign of legalized cunning and force, the oppression of the weak, and of those who toil and suffer." [17a]

True ecumenism with the Muslims

"Those who have learned theology well," says St. Basil, “will not allow even one iota of Catholic dogmas to be betrayed. They will, if necessary, willingly undergo any kind of death in their defense." [17b]

One of the greatest frauds presented to us by a great number of the current hierarchy is the false notion of ecumenism, which in reality is not ecumenism but simple "syncretism" going by the name of "ecumenism. True Ecumenism requires all those outside the Church to come to the Ark of Salvation so that they may not perish.

True ecumenism can be effectively defined as follows:

"The unity of Christians cannot otherwise be obtained than by securing the return of the separated to the one true Church of Christ from which they once unhappily withdrew. To the one true Church of Christ, we say, that stands forth before all and that by the will of its Founder will remain forever the same as when He Himself established it for the salvation of all mankind." [18]

This has been the constant teaching of the Church. Holy Mother Church has always taught that true unity cannot be effected, except by a unity in faith and government. [19]

Pope Pius IX condemned in his syllabus of errors the following false notions:

"Every man is free to embrace and profess that religion which, guided by the light of reason, he shall consider true." (Proposition XV).

"Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation and arrive at eternal salvation." (Proposition XVI).

The real problem with this false ecumenism (which lead to indifferentism) is not only the fact that Catholics are being deceived but in the same process so are the infidels and non-believers and they sadly continue on the road to perdition without being told to recant their errors.

Catholics often forget that those faithful living on earth come under the title of "Church Militant". What is a Catholic who does not confess his faith or worse yet a Catholic who does not believe his faith?

St. Peter Canisius puts it this way: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. Hence, he is truly a Christian thoroughly condemns and detests, the Jewish, Mohammedan, and the heretical cults and sects." [20]

What did St. Peter Mavimenus tell the Mohammedans? Did he say, "We worship the same God, all is well" No! He told them the truth, he put it this way to them "Whoever does not embrace the Catholic Christian religion will be damned, as was your false prophet Mohammed." [21]

Again we read that Blessed Nicholas Tavilich was just as stern as he openly states, "You Mohammedans are in a state of everlasting damnation. Your Koran is not God's law nor is it revealed by Him. Far from being a good thing, your law is utterly evil. It is founded neither in the Old Testament nor in the New. In it are lies, foolish things, buffooneries, contradictions, and much that leads not to virtue and goodness but to evil and to all manner of vice." [22]

St. Alphonsus attests to the fact how the Holy Monk St. Goerge of San Saba openly confessed to the Mohammedans: "But the holy monk (St. George of San Saba) having declared that Mahomet was a disciple of the devil, and that his followers were in a state of perdition, he also was condemned (to martyrdom) with his companions." [23]

The same we read in the testimony of the five disciples of St. Francis of Assisi, who when reproached by the followers of Koran for preaching against Mohammed, simply responded by saying "We have come to preach faith in Jesus Christ to you, that you will renounce Mohammad, that wicked slave of the devil, and obtain everlasting life like us" [23a]

Further we read in the life of St. John Vianney how he stated openly to a Protestant who believed that his worship rendered to God should do him just as well in his Protestant Sect as it would have in the Catholic faith, The Saint responded to him with the contrary advice saying "My friend, there are not two ways of serving Our Lord; there is only one good way, and it is to serve Him as He wishes to be served".[24]

This is the truth we must speak in charity and honesty to these lost souls who without the grace and redemption of Christ can't be saved for By nature, men are "children of wrath" (Eph. 2:3); by Him, we have been reconciled with the Father (Col. 1:20), and it is only by faith in Him that we can have the boldness to approach God with entire confidence (Eph. 3:12). To Him was given all power in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18), and at His name every knee must bend, in heaven, on earth, and under the earth (Phil. 2:10,11). No one goes to the Father save by Him (Jn. 14:6), and there is no other name under heaven given to man by which he must be saved (Acts 4:12). He is the Light that enlightens every man who comes into the world (Jn.1:9), and whoever does not follow Him wanders in darkness (Jn. 8:12). Who is not with Him is against Him (Mt. 13:30), and who does not honor Him also dishonors His Father who sent Him (as the Jews do) (Jn. 5:23).

Christ says, " Do you think I came to bring peace on earth? No I tell you but division?" With the truth, division must come. This should not dishearten the man of God for "If God is for us, who is against us" - Rom 8:31 (Do Catholics and Muslims worship the same God, by Raymond Taouck.)