The cited EWTN News article from March 9, 2026, reports on interfaith iftar meals held in Pakistan during Ramadan, organized by Catholic clergy including Dominican Father James Channan. It highlights events where Christians and Muslims shared prayers and meals, citing goals of peace, social harmony, and countering extremism. The article prominently features a meeting between the prayer leader of Lahore’s Badshahi Mosque and the post-conciliar antipope “Pope Leo XIV” in Rome. The underlying thesis of the piece is that such naturalistic, interreligious social bonding is a praiseworthy and effective means to achieve temporal peace and mutual understanding, implicitly presenting it as a fulfillment of the Church’s mission in a pluralistic world.
The Naturalistic Obsession with Social Harmony
The article’s entire framework is grounded in a naturalistic, sociological understanding of religion, utterly foreign to the Catholic theology that preceded the 1958 revolution. Father Channan states, “Table friendships are very important in our context. People attending such forums highlight them on social media, reaching millions,” and claims these events “have helped curb trends of church attacks.” This reduces the supernatural mission of the Catholic Church—the salvation of souls—to a mere instrument of social cohesion and conflict prevention. The focus is on *perceived* temporal benefits (“curb trends of church attacks”) and public relations (“highlight them on social media”), not on the conversion of Muslims to the one true Faith or the defense of Catholic doctrine against Islamic error. This is a direct manifestation of the “cult of man” and “democratization of the Church” condemned by pre-conciliar pontiffs.
Pius XI, in his encyclical *Quas Primas* on the Kingship of Christ, is unequivocal: the peace of Christ in the Kingdom of Christ is the *only* foundation for lasting societal peace. He writes that when God and Jesus Christ are “removed from laws and states… the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The article’s premise—that peace can be built through shared meals between Catholics and Muslims without any explicit acknowledgment of Christ’s exclusive reign and the necessity of His Church for salvation—is a repudiation of this fundamental Catholic principle. It promotes a false peace based on religious indifferentism.
The Omission of Christ’s Exclusive Kingship and the Duty of Conversion
A profound and damning silence permeates the article: the absolute, universal kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ over all individuals, families, and nations. There is no mention of the duty of every human person to submit to the sweet yoke of Christ and His Church. There is no call for the conversion of Muslims, who deny the Divinity of Christ and the Trinity. Instead, the event is framed as a dialogue between two equal “faiths” sharing a common ethical concern for peace.
This omission is a direct betrayal of the doctrine so clearly proclaimed in *Quas Primas*. Pius XI states that Christ’s reign “encompasses all men” and that “His reign encompasses also all non-Christians, so that most truly the entire human race is subject to the authority of Jesus Christ.” The article’s model of “dialogue” treats Islam and Catholicism as two separate, co-equal paths to God, a notion Pius IX condemned in his *Syllabus of Errors* (Error 18: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion…”). If Protestantism is condemned as a false religion, how much more so is Islam, which denies the Incarnation and the Holy Trinity? The article’s silence on this truth is a practical endorsement of the condemned error of indifferentism (Syllabus, Errors 15-17).
The Legitimization of Schism and Heresy through “Dialogue”
The article celebrates a meeting with Abdul Khabeer Azad, a prayer leader at the Badshahi Mosque, who had previously met with antipope Leo XIV at a “Christian-Muslim Dialogue” conference in Rome. This conferring of legitimacy upon a prominent Islamic cleric—who, by Catholic definition, is a public heretic and schismatic for rejecting Christ—is a grave scandal. It signals that the conciliar sect no longer considers the conversion of non-Catholics a primary goal but rather their co-operation within a naturalistic framework.
This is the logical fruit of the “ecumenism” condemned by St. Pius X in his oath against Modernism and by Pius XI, who warned that the “errors and wicked endeavors” of secularism lead to the “subordination” of divine religion to natural religion. The article showcases the “ecumenical project” in action: a Catholic priest fraternizing with a leader of a false religion, presenting their shared meal as a higher good than the proclamation of the exclusive necessity of the Catholic Church for salvation (*Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus*). The tone is one of mutual admiration and common cause, precisely the “religious relativism” the *Syllabus* anathematized.
The “Two Powers” Error: A Return to Gallicanism
Father Channan’s comment, “The ongoing conflicts are not crusades; they are wars of interest,” reveals a deeper error: the secularization of the Church’s view of temporal power. By reducing geopolitical conflicts to mere “wars of interest,” he strips them of any moral dimension according to the Social Kingship of Christ. This echoes the Gallican and modernist errors condemned by Pius IX (Syllabus, Errors 39-55) and Pius X (*Lamentabili*, Prop. 63: “It is lawful to refuse obedience to legitimate princes, and even to rebel against them”). The Catholic doctrine, as articulated by Leo XIII and Pius XI, is that the state must recognize and publicly honor Christ the King. The article’s framing accepts the secular, neutral state model, where religion is a private matter and public life is governed by “interest” rather than by the law of Christ.
The Symptom of a Broader Apostasy: The “Peace” of the Antichrist
This event is not an isolated incident but a symptom of the systemic apostasy of the post-conciliar “Church.” The coincidence of Lent and Ramadan is presented as an “inspiration” for joint prayers. Yet, Lent is a season of penance and reparation for sin, while Ramadan is a month of fasting prescribed by the false prophet Muhammad. To fuse these two observances in a shared prayer context is to profane the unique, salvific character of Catholic penance and to imply a common spiritual ground where none exists. It is a syncretistic abomination.
The article’s silence on the supernatural—on sin, on the need for grace, on the Sacrifice of the Mass, on the final judgment—is deafening. The entire narrative is confined to the horizontal plane of human relationships and social peace. This is the “natural religion” Pius IX condemned (Syllabus, Error 40: “The teaching of the Catholic Church is hostile to the well-being and interests of society”). The peace sought is the false peace of the Antichrist, which unites men in their rebellion against the exclusive reign of Christ.
Conclusion: A Scandalous Betrayal
The interfaith iftar described is not a Catholic act. It is a public manifestation of the conciliar sect’s abandonment of the integral Catholic faith. It promotes indifferentism, legitimizes heresy and schism, omits the mandatory call for conversion, and reduces the Church’s mission to a naturalistic NGO activity focused on social harmony. The clergy involved, by participating in and promoting such events, are guilty of apostasy and scandal. They lead the faithful into the error of believing that Christ’s kingdom can be served through partnership with His declared enemies. True peace, as Pius XI taught, is found only in the reign of Christ the King, a reign that demands the public submission of all nations and the exclusive worship of the one true God. The article presents the exact opposite: a syncretistic, human-centered peace that is an abomination before God.
Source:
Pakistani Christians join Muslims for Ramadan meals amid Iran war fallout (ewtnnews.com)
Date: 09.03.2026