Thursday, May 7, 2015

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II affirms the Social Kingship of Christ the King

 1.Does Vatican Council II affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King ?

The Social Reign of Christ the King was opposed by the leftists groups. Since it opposes the basis of the secular philosophies i.e it is God who is the center of the universe and society. It is not man.So all political legislation must have this end.
Vatican Council II tells us there is no salvation outside the Church, all need faith and baptism for salvation(AG 7,LG 14) . All society must be oriented to the Catholic Church to avoid Hell.
So Vatican Council II is saying that there is a moral obligation for society to be Catholic and to worship God in the only way he wants to be worshipped.
Other religions are free, legally and physically , in countries with a secular Constitution.According to Vatican Council II, the members of these religions have an obligation to enter the Church.

Vatican Council II indicates that in principle a non Catholic could be saved in another religion, in a manner known only to God but these are not defacto, known cases on earth. These cases are unknown to us in the present times.So Vatican Council II does not contradict itself by saying there is known salvation outside the church. There is no known salvation outside the church mentioned in the text of the Council and neither in real life do we know of any such case. We humanly cannot know of any such case.
We accept those who are declared saints by the Church, as being in Heaven. Otherwise in general we do not know who has received salvation, outside the Church, we cannot see them in Heaven. This is  always implicit for us and explicit only for God.

We do not know if the followers of 'the great religions' are in Heaven. They did not have faith and the baptism of water, which Vatican Council II says is needed to go to Heaven.

Since there is no salvation outside the church according to Vatican Council II.Other religions and philosophies are false paths to salvation, from Judaism and Islam to New Age theories.
Vatican Council II affirms the Social Reign of the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Syllabus of Errors and the defined dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. It endorses the Nicene Creed which says there is one known baptism (of water) for the forgiveness of sins and not three known baptisms(water,desire and blood).Since the baptism of desire and blood can only be known to God; only he can judge.They are mentioned in Vatican Council II as hypothetical, theoretical case.The dogma tells us that they must be followed by the baptism of water.
Without the use of a dead man walking on earth, saved in invincible ignorance, theory, an irrational theory, the Council holds the traditional teaching on other religions and ecumenism. It says all need Catholic Faith (AG 7) for salvation.This of course includes the Protestants and Orthodox Christians whom the dogma Cantate Domino, Council of Florence 1441 calls heretics and schismatics, needing to convert to avoid the fires of Hell.
Since the Catechism of the Catholic Church has the same message as Vatican Council II, (only when interpreted  without the false premise; without Apparition Theology), it is in accord with all traditional teachings which have been inspired by the Holy Spirit.This is a rational and traditional interpretation of Vatican Council II. It has the hermeneutic of continuity.
So yes, Vatican Council II does affirm the Social Kingship of Christ the King.
2.The Council’s words are strong and forthright  implicitly asserting the sovereignty of Christ over all nations ?
Fr.Brian Harrison thinks that Vatican Council II supports the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King.
Louie Verrecchio writes,:
'In response to my (Verrecchio) request to quote from his lecture, and having shared with him the excerpt from my Catholic Identity Conference presentation, Fr. Brian Harrison suggested that “in fairness to Vatican Council II,” I should “point out that Dignitatis Humanae #13 … specifically references in footnote 33 those words you appeal to from the end of Matthew’s Gospel (as well as Mark 16: 15 and Pius XII’s 1939 Encyclical Summi Pontificatus), in order to back up the Church’s claim of a unique right granted by Christ vis-a-vis all temporal rulers.”
He continues:
The Council’s words are strong and forthright here, implicitly asserting the sovereignty of Christ over all nations, but we now seldom hear them quoted:

“In human society and in the face of any public power whatsoever, the Church claims liberty for herself in her capacity as the spiritual authority established by Christ the Lord, charged by divine mandate with the duty of going into all the world and preaching the Gospel to every creature.”
3. If Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus then religious liberty is traditional?
No  matter how you interpret Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican Council II, if Vatican Council II affirms extra ecclesiam nulla salus religious liberty is traditional.

There has been so much written and spoken about Dignitatis Humanae (DH), Vatican Council II without mentioning that the real issue is extra ecclesiam nulla sales. If there is ambiguity in DH it is because of the rejection of the dogma on salvation.
If it is accepted that Vatican Council II endorses extra ecclesiam nulla salus then Religious Liberty is no more ambiguous in Vatican Council II.
So the ambiguity  on  Religious Liberty is not in DH but when it is assumed that Lumen Gentium 16,on invincible ignorance and being saved with a good conscience, are known exceptions to the dogma on exclusive salvation in only the Catholic Church.
This is the Richard Cushing heresy to assume that a defined dogma has explicit exceptions and that we can see the dead saved with a good conscience.This is irrational. It is also an irrational interpretation of Vatican Council II.It is Cushingism which creates a break with the traditional teaching on religious liberty.
There are no exceptions mentioned in Vatican Council II to the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus. So the Council affirms the traditional understanding of religious liberty.

4. Pope Francis omits doctrine which is the basis for religious liberty ?
Pope Francis spoke on the necessity of believing in Jesus for salvation. He did not mention the necessity of the Catholic Church.He did not mention the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, which St.Ignatius of Loyola affirmed, and which is supported by Vatican Council II and the Catechism of the Catholic Church.The dogma is also the basis for the Catholic Church's understanding of religious liberty and other religions. Other religions are free in a secular state (DH) to follow their religion but for a Catholic, they have a moral obligation to enter the Church, since outside the church there is no salvation(CCC 846).
The Pope and present day Jesuits make the common error. They assume those who are saved in their religion by Jesus and the Church(CCC 846), are visible to us and so they are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation.
If you would ask a Jesuit,"Why do you no more say like St.Ignatius of Loyola that every one needs to be a visible member of Holy Mother Hierarchical Church ?",he could answer,"since we now know there are exceptions."
He means there are non Catholics (for him) who can be saved in invincible ignorance etc (agreed!) and ( now comes the irrationality! ) they are known to us in the present times (2013-2015) , we can name them.So they are exceptions to St.Francis Xavier and St.Ignatious of Loyola's understanding of salvation.
So for Pope Francis and the Jesuits CCC 846(Outside the Church no salvation) would contradict itself.
It is a contradiction for the Pope since CCC 846 says for him, all need to enter the church as through a door, all need faith and baptism and it also says some do not need to do so in the present times.Irrational!
It is based on this irrationality that Pope Francis omitted the traditional doctrine/dogma on salvation.He also gave us the new doctrine of the Jesuits. This is the doctrine of visible to us salvation.Perhaps this is all unknown to him.It just was part of his formation as a Jesuit.
Christ must be King of the universe and all social and political legislation since outside the church there is no salvation, known or unknown.This was Pope Francis' message last May 2012, when he said outside the Church we cannot find Jesus. He cited St.Ignatius of Loyola and Pope Paul VI.
So on Nov.24,2013 he could have said that there is salvation in only Jesus and within the Catholic Church.All need to convert into the Church visibly for this salvation.(Dominis Iesus 20, Redemptoris Missio 55, AG 7,LG 14, CCC 845,846)
5.Catholics must celebrate the feast of Christ the King ?

Catholics, the new people of God (Nostra Aetate 4) , the Chosen People, the people of the Eternal Covenant (Heb.8:16-13) yesterday (Sunday,October 27,2013) gave praise and offering to God at the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. It was the feast of Christ the King, King of the Universe, whose Social Kingship extends, as their ideal, to all moral, social and political laws.In the liturgy of the Extraordinary Form of the Mass yesterday , there were the Readings and hymns which exalted Christ as the King on earth, for those who love Him.
The Elect (John 3:5), those with 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7), in only the Catholic Church in which all need to convert (AG 7), remembered at the Tridentine Rite Mass , the martyrs, the saints and those gone before us to the everlasting kingdom in Heaven.
In the Catholic Church, which is the pearl of great price, the treasure the man found and sold all he had to possess it (Mat. 13: 44-46), there were sermons on the Social Reign of Christ the King , which is being opposed by the forces of evil. It is opposed by the secular , leftists and communists laws and the culture of death which leads to eternal death in the kingdom of Satan. These are the forces of lies and error who try to separate the kingdom of God from the Catholic Church.
 It was within the Catholic Church that the great saints Francis of Assisi , Teresa of Avila and others renewed the kingdom of God within the Church, and also experienced the highest levels of the kingdom of God within themself,while remaining sons and daughters of the Church.
The Kingdom of God within oneself also cannot be separated from the Church. Today many New Agers , and others outside the visible limits of the Catholic Church, confuse the Kingdom of God with the kingdom of Satan. They do not know Christ the king and cannot find the kingdom of God in Transcendental Meditation, Buddhism, Yoga etc.
In the spiritual dimension there is only one King, who is Christ and all principalities, sovereignties and kingdoms must finally bow to Him.
In Catholic mission, proclamation and evangelisation we cannot separate the Kingdom of God from the Catholic Church, the Mystical Body (Col 1,1-8) of Christ the King.
Belonging to the Catholic Church and living without mortal sin is the only way in 2013 to go to the everlasting Kingdom of God.Mortal Sin separates us from the Kingdom of God and the Sacrament of Confession within the Church reunites us with the Kingdom.
There is no other religion, which has the 'fullness of truth' which leads to the kingdom of God. The Church is that 'narrow gate' (Matt. 7:14). So for Catholics there cannot be a separation of Church and State. Politics and religion have been separated by leftist ideology. The enemies of the Church have prevented all laws having Christ and the Church at its center.
Even though they are opposed to the traditional teaching outside the church there is no salvation (AG 7, CCC 846, Mark.16:16) there is an obligation for all people to worship God in only the Catholic Church.This is the message of Dignitatis Humanae, Vatican Council II. Even though in a state with a secular Constitution there is religious liberty to follow ones religion(DH) there is an obligation to follow the one, true Church to avoid Hell. DH is factual. In a state with a secular Constitution there is equal religious liberty for all. However Catholics can still recognize Christ as King whose Social Reign must extend to all people.
Even though many choose to interpret Vatican Council II as a break with Tradition, we can interpret the Council as traditional on the issues of other religions (AG 7,LG 14), ecumenism (AG 7,LG 14) and religious liberty (DH).

6. Leftist media interpret Vatican Council II with Apparition Theology so it is a break with the Social Reign of Christ the King?
The Religious News Editor of Reuters,  assumes that Vatican Council II has changed the teachings of the Catholic Church on other religions. This comes about  since he personally assumes that references to salvation are not invisible but visible for us. They are explicit i.e we can see cases in the present times, who are dead and are in Heaven, saved in invincible ignorance or a good conscience (LG 16). We can allegedly meet people on the streets, according to Reuters , who are dead and saved with the seeds of the word(AG 11) , imperfect communion with the church(UR 3)  etc.So the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus has been contradicted for Reuters with the use of Apparition Theology ( I can see a ghost).
Without the  error of being able to see the dead on earth, Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.Dignitatis Humanae (DH) of Vatican Council II supports the Social Reign of Jesus Christ, as opposed to the secular concept from Rousseau etc.
DH recognizes the religious freedom and rights of non Catholics in a society with a secular Constitution. See the references of DH for the phrase ' secular Constitution'.Even Catholic traditionalists accept this and do not oppose non Catholics legally or physically, in a state with a secular Constitution.
Vatican Council II  also endorses the moral necessity of proclaiming the Catholic Faith outside of which there is no salvation (AG 7).

The leftist media and organisations oppose Vatican Council II presently, since they assume implicit salvation is explicit.

For Catholics God and not man, must be the center of all political legislation.All laws must conform to the teachings of the only Church Jesus founded outside of which there is no salvation.This is opposed by the secular philosophies of leftist and communist governments.
7. We respect the dignity of all people but we are also called to proclaim the truth ?
We respect the dignity of all people and we love them all as Jesus asks of us.We acknowledge their legal freedom in a state with a seclular Constituion, to live their faith freely.However we have the moral right as Catholics, to affirm the Catholic Faith outside of which there is no salvation.(AG 7,LG 14, Vatican Council II).We know that the different religions and sects are not paths to go to Heaven and to avoid Hell(AG7).

So according to Catholic Faith, Truth demands that we say that we oppose religious liberty for non Catholics, in the sense, that they are false paths to salvation.Since these religions though possibly containing good and holy things (Nostra Aetate, Vatican Council II) will not take their members to eternal happiness.If they do not convert into the Catholic Church they will experience eternal pain and suffering in Hell.Truth obliges us Catholics to say this.
So while religious liberty in a secular state is legal, morally a Catholic cannot approve a mosque , synagogue or temple. Since these are signs of eternal death according to the Catholic Faith, which says Jesus died for all but to receive this salvation all need to respond by entering the Catholic Church (Dominus Iesus 20). The Church is necessary for salvation and is the ordinary means of salvation. (Redemptoris Missio 55).
We do not force anyone not to follow his conscience or freely not to express his religion(CCC 2106). However we have the right to proclaim our faith with religious liberty.
Even though their religions may put them in contact with God (Dignitatis Humanae 2) we respect there religions according to the legal norms (CCC 2109) and we know they are false paths to salvation.
7. Avoid the false premise and Vatican Council II changes on Religous Liberty ? 

Yes if you avoid the false premise and inference then Vatican Council II changes on Religous Liberty.
false premise leads to a different Vatican Council II. We can see this on a report. The New Evangelization: Quo Vadis?Sept. 20, 2012 by Paul Kokoski. (Rorate Caeili)
More and more, Catholics are shying away from using terms like “proselytizing,” “conversion,” and even “Catholic” in their ecumenical and inter-religious efforts, almost as if they were ashamed of the Gospel, or afraid of appearing as a “sign of contradiction.”
This is because of the false premise and the confusion which results in the interpretation of Vatican Council II.
Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae states that every person has a “right” to religious freedom.
Lionel: Correct.


A. If you do not use the faulty premise then Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation. So we use the teaching 'Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation 'as a premise.

Every person is physically free, however morally they have an obligation to enter the Church, since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Vatican Council II becomes traditonal.
B. If you do use the faulty premise i.e we can see the dead- saved, then there is salvation outside the Church. Every one does not have to enter the Church. So non Catholics are free to follow their religion. They do not have a moral obligation to enter the Church. This is what Vatican Council II says!
This same contradiction is advanced in other documents of Vatican II. The “Decree on Ecumenism”(4), for example, states that there is no opposition between “ecumenical action” and “full Catholic communion.” This would seem to support the positive theory of coercion, i.e., that of proclaiming truth and correcting error, which has always been at the heart of the church’s missionary mandate. It forged world-wide conquests of many nations to the Catholic faith, and was the cause of countless martyrs. Other sections of the “Decree on Ecumenism” (No 3-4), as well as Vatican II’s “Decree on Religious Liberty,” decidedly support the non-coercive theory which negates the church’s pre-Vatican II missionary mandate of conversion, while implying that the “fullness of Catholic truth” is not necessary for salvation. This latter proposition has become the status quo among the Catholic faithful and church elite, including His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope John Paul II. Cardinal Kasper has boldly stated, for example, that: “Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001).
“Today, we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of a return, by which the others would ‘be converted’ and return to being ‘Catholics.’ This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II.” (Adista, Feb. 26, 2001).
A. If you do not use the false premise then Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation. So instead we use 'Vatican Council II is saying outside the Church there is no salvation' as a premise.
Every person is physically free, however morally they have an obligation to enter the Church since there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. So Protestants need to enter the Church according to Vatican Council II (AG 7). AG 7 says all need Catholic Faith. Protestants have the baptism of water but not Catholic Faith and so they cannot be saved unless they convert into the one ,true Church.So an ecumenism of return is important.
B. We can see the dead- saved (false premise) and so there is salvation outside the Church. Every one does not have to enter the Church. So Protestants are free to follow their religion. They do not have a moral obligation to enter the Church. An ecumenism of return is not needed according to Vatican Council II.

Roberto de Mattei still has to affirm the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus in agreement with Vatican Council II (AG 7, NA 4).
De Mattei: "Religious Liberty - or liberty for Christians?"
Among the slogans of “politically correct” language there is the term “religious liberty”, which is used incorrectly at times by Catholics as a synonym for freedom for the Church or freedom for Christians. In reality the terms and concepts are different and it is necessary to clarify them. The ambiguity present in the Conciliar declaration Dignitatis humanae (1965) arose from the lack of distinction between the internal forum, which is in the sphere of personal conscience, and the public space, which is in the sphere of the community, or rather the profession and propagation of one’s personal religious convictions.

The Church, with Pope Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos (1836), with Pope Pius IX in the Syllabus and in Quanta Cura (1864), but also with Pope Leo XIII in Immortale Dei (1885) and in Libertas (1888) teaches that:

• 1. No one can be constricted to believe in the private forum, because faith is a personal choice formed in the conscience of man.
True. Man is phyically free.
• 2. Man has no right to religious freedom in the public space, or rather freedom to profess whatever religion, because only the true and the good have rights and not what is error and is evil.
 Since Vatican Council II, the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus and the Syllabus of Errors says outside the church there is no salvation this is understandable and accepted.
• 3. Public worship of false religions may be, in cases, tolerated by the civil authorities, with the view of obtaining a greater good or avoiding a greater evil, but, in essence, it may be repressed even by force if necessary. But the right to tolerance is a contradiction, because, as is evident even from the term, whatever is tolerated is never a good thing, rather, it is always a purely bad thing. In the social life of nations, error may be tolerated as a reality, but never allowed as a right. Error “has no right to exist objectively nor to propaganda, nor action” (Pius XII Speech Ci Riesce 1953)
 True according to Vatican Council II (AG 7) and the traditional teaching. This is not true according to Vatican Council II interpreted with the factual error made by Cardinal Francesco Marchetti Selvaggiani.In the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 this cardinal assumed that those saved in invincible ignorance (I.I) and the baptism of desire(BOD) were defacto, known in the present times, exceptions to the rigorist interpretation of the dogma according to Fr.Leonard  Feeney and the St. Benedict Center.The influence of that error can be seen in Vatican Council II.The references to I.I and BOD in Ad Gentes 7 and Lumen Gentium 14 are superflous.They do not contradict the orthodox passages in AG 7 and LG 14.
For Cardinal Richard Cushing and the Jesuits who were active at Vatican Council, there was known salvation outside the Church. They held the Marchetti irrationality which was also heresy.
Robert de Mattei like the SSPX support the Marchetti error and so Vatican Council II contradicts the traditional teaching on Religious Liberty. 
Further, the right of being immune to coercion, or rather the fact that the Church does not impose the Catholic Faith on anyone, but requires the freedom of the act of faith, does not arise from a presumed natural right to religious freedom or a presumed natural right to believe in any religion whatever, but it is founded on the fact that the Catholic Religion, the only true one, must be embraced in complete freedom without any constraints.
This is the religious freedom that one takes for granted when Vatican Council II affirms the literal interpretation of the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.
The liberty of the believer is based on the truth believed and not on the self-determination of the individual. The Catholic and only the Catholic has the natural right to profess and practice his religion and he has it because his religion is the true one. Which means that no other believer apart from the Catholic has the natural right to profess his religion.
True according to Ad Gentes 7 and Nostra Aetate 4 ( the new people of God).
The verification of this is in the fact that rights do not exist without responsibilities and duties and vice versa. The natural law, summed upten commandments, is expressed in a prescriptive manner, that is, it imposes duties and responsibilities from which rights arise. For example, in the Commandment “Do not kill the innocent” the right of the innocent to life arises. The rejection of abortion is a prescription of natural rights which is separated from religion and whoever conforms to it. And this is the same for the seven Commandments of the Second Table. Comparing the right to religious liberty to the right to life, considering them both as natural rights, is however, nonsense.
The first three commandments of the Decalogue in fact do not refer to all and sundry divinities, but only to the God of the Old and the New Testaments. From the First Commandment, which imposes adoration of the Only True God, arises the right and the duty to profess not any religion but the only true one. This counts for both the individual and the State. The State, like each individual, has the duty to profess the true religion, also because the aims of the State are no different from those of the individual.
The reason the State cannot constrain anyone to believe does not arise from the religious neutrality of the State, but from the fact that adhering to the truth must be completely free. If the individual had the right to preach and profess publically any religion whatever, the State would have the obligation of religious neutrality. This has been repeatedly condemned by the Church.
For this reason we say that man has the right to profess, not any religion, but to profess the only true one. Only if religious liberty is intended as Christian liberty, will it be possible to speak of the right to it.
There are those who sustain that we live actually in a pluralistic and secularized society, that the Catholic States have disappeared and that Europe is a continent that has turned its back on Christianity. Therefore, the real problem is that of Christians persecuted in the world, and not that of a Catholic State. Nobody denies this, but the verification of a reality is not equivalent to the affirmation of a principle. The Catholic must desire a Catholic society and State with all his heart, where Christ reigns,
Agreed. The Church and state should not be separate and secularism and state should be separated.
as Pope Pius XI in the encyclical Quas Primas (1925) explains.
The distinction between the “thesis” (the principle) and the “hypothesis”(the concrete situation) is noted. The more that we are obliged to suffer under the hypothesis, the more we have to try to make the thesis known. Hence, we do not renounce the doctrine of the Social Kingship of Christ: let us speak of the rights of Jesus Christ to reign over entire societies as the only solution to modern evils. So, instead of fighting for religious liberty, which is the equalizing of the true religion with the false ones, let us fight in defense of liberty for Christians, today persecuted by Islam in the East and by the dictatorship of relativism in the West.
Roberto de Mattei
[From: Corrispondenza Romana - July 19, 2012. Contribution and Translation: Contributor Francesca Romana. As always, posted articles reflect the views of their authors: we ask for a healthy debate in the comments.]
I agree with his conclusion here, but note he interprets Vatican Council II with Cushingism, with Apparition Theology.So Vatican Council II for him is a break with the traditional teaching on the Social Reign of Christ the King over all political political systems.
-Lionel Andrades

Questions and Answers : Vatican Council II is Feeneyite. It has an exclusivist ecclesiology

Questions and Answers : Evangelizing with Vatican Council II

Questions and Answers : Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake ?

Members of the St. Francis of Assisi School choir from Ann Arbor sing a selection during a March 19 festival sponsored by the American Federation Pueri Cantores at the Cathedral of the Most Blessed Sacrament.Did the Letter of the Holy Office 1949 make a factual mistake and so school children in the Archdiocese of Detroit have to use an irrationality to interpret Vatican Council II ? 

According to the Catholic Church Islam/Islamism is not a path to salvation

According to the Catholic Church Islam/Islamism is not a path to salvation and their members need 'faith and baptism'(Ad Gentes 7,Lumen Gentium 14) for salvation ( to avoid Hell).
Vatican Council II on Muslims

USCCB statements on Vatican Council and Islam omits Ad Gentes 7

Muslim professors must know exactly what are the teachings of the Catholic Church about Islam and other religions, before and after Vatican Council II


-Lionel Andrades

No Toronto Catholic Register. No L'Osservatore Romano, IT IS NOT BLASPHEMY to mock Mahomet! HE IS NOT GOD!

Toronto's Catholic Register is parrotting this story from RNS referring to a front-page article at L'Osservatore Romano calling the cartoons of Mohomet "blasphemous."

mohammed-dendermonde-1This is quite incredible really.

One can blaspheme God.

One cannot blaspheme a man.

If Mahomet ever really existed can be debated. If he did, he was a warlord; a murderer, a child-molester and a Jew-hating Christ denier -- and antichrist.

He was no prophet.

I'm not suggesting that we should engage in mocking anyone; but I won't call the mocking of a man, blasphemy because it is not.

Shame on those Catholics who would use such a word reserved for Him who is truly One in Three Persons.

Shame on the Catholic Register and its Editors to use such a headline.

Do these people have any theological or historical or religious education? Are they just plain stupid or do they really believe the lies they are trying to sell as truth?

More of Mahomet's useful idiots they are.

Muhammad cartoons 'blasphemous,' Vatican paper says

  • May 6, 2015
VATICAN CITY - The Vatican’s semi-official newspaper blasted a series of cartoons of Islam’s Prophet Muhammad as “blasphemous” but also condemned the “mad and bloodthirsty” extremists who opened fire at a Texas exhibit of the cartoons.
The front-page article in L’Osservatore Romano likened the exhibit in Garland, Texas, to pouring “gasoline on the fire” of religious sensitivities and was critical of its sponsors, the American Freedom Defense Initiative and professional provocateur Pamela Geller.
Police on May 3 shot and killed two gunmen who opened fire outside the exhibit that was designed to provoke Muslim sensitivities; the so-called Islamic State has since claimed responsibility for the attack that injured a security guard, and promised more to come.
The newspaper said the Texas event “resembles only remotely the initiatives of Charlie Hebdo,” referring to the French satirical weekly whose office was attacked by Islamist extremists in January. Twelve people were gunned down at the Paris premises by the Islamist militants, who targeted magazine staff for publishing similar cartoons.
After the Charlie Hebdo attacks, Pope Francis condemned the idea of killing “in God’s name” but warned that “you cannot provoke, you cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others.”
While L’Osservatore Romano said the Texas exhibition could be compared to Charlie Hebdo “for its provocative intention, almost a desire to throw gasoline on the fire,” the Vatican newspaper reserved a stronger condemnation for those behind the attacks.
Garland was “certainly not Paris,” while the anticipated “participation of some ultra-conservative European politicians” was also noted. The Vatican newspaper went on to urge respect, which it described as “the necessary attitude to approach the religious experience of another.”
L’Osservatore Romano is largely autonomous from the Vatican but rarely publishes anything that does not have the tacit approval of Vatican officials.