The article from the National Catholic Register (March 9, 2026) reports on interfaith iftar meals during Ramadan in Pakistan, featuring the participation of Dominican Father James Channan and references to meetings with the post-conciliar antipope “Pope” Leo XIV. It presents these events as a positive model for curbing violence and fostering peace through shared religious practice. This narrative, however, is a stark manifestation of the modernist apostasy condemned by pre-1958 Catholic doctrine. It systematically omits the exclusive reign of Christ the King, promotes religious indifferentism, and legitimizes the conciliar sect’s ecumenical revolution, all while ignoring the catastrophic consequences of this betrayal for souls.
The Omission of Christ’s Exclusive Kingship
The article’s foundational error is its complete silence on the dogma of Christ’s exclusive and universal kingship, a truth defined with absolute clarity by Pope Pius XI in Quas Primas. The encyclical states that Christ’s reign “encompasses all men” and that “there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). The article instead presents a paradigm of parallel worship, where Muslims and Christians share meals and prayers as co-equal participants in a vague “spirit of Ramadan and Lent.” This is a direct repudiation of the Syllabus of Errors of Pope Pius IX, which condemns the proposition that “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation” (Error 16). By framing the iftar as a mutually edifying religious act, the article implicitly endorses the indifferentism that Pius IX declared “false” and “damnable.” The true Catholic position, as articulated by Pius XI, is that all nations and rulers must publicly honor and obey Christ the King, and that His law must order all human relations. The article’s celebration of shared prayer with non-Catholics, therefore, is not a step toward peace but a public renunciation of Christ’s exclusive sovereignty, substituting a naturalistic “human brotherhood” for the supernatural unity of the Mystical Body of Christ.
The Legitimization of the Conciliar Sect’s Leadership
The article treats “Pope” Leo XIV as a legitimate pontiff, reporting his meeting with Muslim cleric Abdul Khabeer Azad at a “Christian-Muslim Dialogue” conference organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio. This is a profound theological scandal. According to the unchanging doctrine of the Church, as taught by St. Robert Bellarmine and others in the Defense of Sedevacantism file, a manifest heretic loses the papal office ipso facto. The actions of Leo XIV—participating in syncretistic prayer with non-Catholics, promoting the “dialogue” condemned by Pius IX’s Syllabus (which rejects the idea that the Church should be “subordinated to secular power” and that “divine religion should be replaced by a natural religion”)—constitute manifest, public heresy. Therefore, he is not a valid pope but an antipope, and the structure he leads is the “conciliar sect.” The article’s uncritical acceptance of his authority is a perfect example of the “hermeneutics of continuity” fraud, which attempts to graft modernist errors onto the pre-conciliar Church. It also exposes the “two Lucia sisters” type of operation: the faithful are presented with a figure called “Pope” who performs acts utterly alien to the Faith, yet they are told to accept him as the Vicar of Christ. This is psychological warfare against the Catholic intellect.
The Naturalistic and Pelagian Foundation
The article’s rationale for interfaith events is purely naturalistic and utilitarian. Father Channan states: “Table friendships are very important in our context. People attending such forums highlight them on social media, reaching millions,” and that such events “have helped curb trends of church attacks.” This reduces the supernatural mission of the Church—the salvation of souls—to a social work project aimed at physical security. It is a quintessential expression of the “cult of man” and the “naturalistic humanism” condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis and by Pius IX in the Syllabus. The article never mentions the necessity of converting Muslims to the one true Faith, the dangers of mortal sin, the reality of hell, or the absolute priority of the Unbloody Sacrifice of Calvary. The focus is on “curbing violence” and “serving vulnerable segments,” not on the exclusive mediation of Christ. This is the “social gospel” of Modernism, which replaces the dogma “Outside the Church there is no salvation” with the Pelagian slogan of “good works and mutual respect.” The article’s silence on the supernatural end of man—the vision of God—is the gravest accusation. It speaks only of temporal peace, while the true Catholic knows that peace is only possible in the kingdom of Christ (Quas Primas).
The Betrayal of the Martyrs and the Reality of Islamic Persecution
The article mentions past attacks on Christians in Pakistan, including the Jaranwala violence and the death of Nazir Masih. However, it uses these tragedies not to call for Catholic resistance and the public reign of Christ, but to justify surrender through dialogue. This inverts the proper Catholic response. The true Catholic, following the example of the martyrs, must confess Christ before men (Matt. 10:32-33) and refuse any compromise with the “false religion” of Islam, which the Syllabus condemns as a “pest” (see introduction to Section IV). The article’s strategy—sharing meals with the very ideology that inspires the attackers—is a betrayal of the martyrs’ blood. It suggests that the problem is a lack of “understanding,” whereas the real problem is the rejection of Christ by a false religion. The article quotes a Muslim speaker saying, “During Ramadan, people distribute free meals to everyone without asking their religion. Blood donors don’t discriminate either. This is the real spirit of Ramadan and Lent.” This is blasphemous relativism. The “spirit of Lent” is penance, reparation, and conversion to Christ; the “spirit of Ramadan” is submission to Allah, a false god. To equate them is to deny the Incarnation and the Redemption.
The Conciliar Roots of the Error
The entire framework of the article—interfaith prayer, shared meals as worship, the legitimacy of non-Catholic religious leaders—is the direct fruit of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate and the post-conciliar “ecumenical movement,” which Lamentabili Sane Exitu would have condemned as a “deplorable consequence… abandoning all restraint.” The article’s language (“interfaith,” “dialogue,” “peace initiative”) is the precise lexicon of the Modernist synthesis of all errors. It embodies Error 65 of the Syllabus: “The doctrine that Christ has raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament cannot be at all tolerated” (extended here to the “sacrament” of interreligious unity). It also embodies Error 77: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State.” The article’s premise is that the state (or in this case, the local community) should be neutral between Catholicism and Islam, a position Pius IX anathematized. The “Dominican Peace Center” hosting this event is a clear example of the “Church” of the New Advent using its own structures to propagate apostasy, just as the “False Fatima Apparitions” file identifies ecumenism as a key goal of the Masonic operation.
Conclusion: A Call to Repudiation
The article is not a report on a charitable act; it is a propaganda piece for the conciliar sect’s program of religious indifferentism. It presents as Catholic an action that is, in fact, a public denial of Christ’s kingship, a participation in the “abomination of desolation” standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). The true Catholic, clinging to the Faith of his fathers, must:
1. Reject the legitimacy of “Pope” Leo XIV and the entire conciliar hierarchy, recognizing them as Modernist occupiers.
2. Condemn interfaith prayer and worship as sacrilegious and heretical, violating the First Commandment and the dogmatic teaching of the Church’s exclusivity.
3. Understand that peace will not come through “table friendships” with Allah’s followers, but through the public and solemn recognition of Jesus Christ as King of individuals, families, and nations—the feast of which was instituted by Pius XI precisely to combat the secularism and indifferentism this article promotes.
4. Pray for the conversion of Muslims, but never participate in their religious acts, which are an offense to the one true God.
The article’s thesis—that such events curb violence—is a lie. The only curb to violence is the reign of Christ the King, whose rights this article and the “Pope” it cites have shamefully abandoned.
Source:
Pakistani Christians Join Muslims for Ramadan Meals Amid Iran War Fallout (ncregister.com)
Date: 09.03.2026