The National Catholic Register portal (September 14, 2026) publishes a commentary by its founding editor, Father Raymond J. de Souza, celebrating twenty-five years of Catholic-Islamic relations after 9/11, hailing the “theological response” of “Pope” Benedict XVI at Regensburg and the “fraternal” initiatives of “Pope” Francis culminating in the Abu Dhabi declaration and the Abrahamic Family House. The article presents the conciliar sect’s engagement with Islam as a hopeful progression from theological clarity to fraternal embrace, citing Saudi reforms, Indonesian Nahdlatul Ulama, and the Zayed Award as fruits of this dialogue. This panegyric to religious indifferentism exposes the conciliar sect’s definitive abandonment of the Social Kingship of Christ and the missionary mandate extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.
The Theological Bankruptcy of Regensburg: Reason Divorced from Faith
The article lauds Benedict XVI’s Regensburg address as the “fullest theological response” to 9/11, summarizing its core argument: “To coerce faith in God by violence is illogical” because “God is reasonable.” This reduction of the Divine Nature to a philosophical principle of non-contradiction, accessible to unaided human reason apart from supernatural Revelation, is the quintessence of Modernist rationalism condemned by St. Pius X in Lamentabili sane exitu (1907). The decree condemns the proposition that “Human reason, without any reference whatsoever to God, is the sole arbiter of truth and falsehood” (Syllabus of Errors, Pius IX, 1864, prop. 3) and that “Divine revelation is imperfect, and therefore subject to a continual and indefinite progress” (prop. 5).
Benedict’s argument—that violence is “unreasonable” and therefore contrary to God—presupposes a natural theology sufficient to judge religious truth, effectively denying the necessity of the Incarnation and the Church as the sole ark of salvation. As Pius XI teaches in Quas Primas: “Christ not only is to be adored as God by angels and men, but that angels and men are to be obedient and subject to His dominion as Man: that is, through the hypostatic union, Christ has authority over all creatures.” The Regensburg address speaks of “reason” and “God” in the abstract, prescinding from Jesus Christ, the sole Mediator. This is not a theological response; it is a philosophical capitulation to the spirit of the world.
The article notes Henry Kissinger—architect of Realpolitik and servant of Masonic internationalism—considered it the “most important statement on Islam after 9/11.” That the conciliar sect’s apologists cite a Freemasonic statesman as the validator of a papal address is the signum contradictionis par excellence. The “breakthrough” with King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, hailed as analogous to Gorbachev’s visit, reveals the true nature of this “dialogue”: a geopolitical alignment with the powers of this world, non ex Deo, sed ex mundo.
Abu Dhabi: The Abomination of Indifferentism Enshrined in Stone
The centerpiece of Francis’s “fraternal legacy” is the 2019 Abu Dhabi declaration on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” signed with the Grand Imam of Al-Azhar, Ahmad Al-Tayyeb. The article admits “imprecision in theological phrasing” requiring clarification that religious pluralism pertains to God’s “permissive will,” not His “aboriginal intent.” This distinction without a difference is a classic Modernist maneuver: paying lip service to orthodoxy while establishing a praxis that contradicts it.
Pius IX in the Syllabus (prop. 16) condemns: “Man may, in the observance of any religion whatever, find the way of eternal salvation, and arrive at eternal salvation.” Prop. 18 condemns: “Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion, in which form it is given to please God equally as in the Catholic Church.” The Abu Dhabi document, by placing the Cross and the Crescent on equal footing in the “Abrahamic Family House”—a tripartite temple housing a mosque, a church, and a synagogue—institutionalizes the heresy of indifferentism. It builds a physical monument to the lie that the God of Jesus Christ, the Most Holy Trinity, can be worshipped jointly with Allah, who has no Son, and with a Judaism that rejects the Messiah.
The article boasts that the Grand Imam signed, though “he and Al-Azhar have not… generally regarded Christians and Jews with brotherly affection.” This reveals the unilateral nature of the conciliar surrender: the sect abandons the necessitas medii (necessity of the means) for a photo-op with an adversary who does not reciprocate the theological concession. As St. Cyprian teaches: “Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”—outside the Church there is no salvation. The “Abrahamic Family House” is a templum haereticum, a spiritual brothel where the Spouse of Christ commits adultery with false gods.
The Saudi Mirage: Modernism’s Alliance with Wahhabi Power
The article praises the “reforms of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman”—women driving, Western tourism, WrestleMania—as “significant” religious moderation, noting Trump’s visits and reduced extremist funding. This is the language of laicism and naturalism, not Catholic theology. Pius XI in Quas Primas warns: “When God and Jesus Christ… were removed from laws and states and when authority was derived not from God but from men, the foundations of that authority were destroyed.” The conciliar sect applauds a theocratic Islamic monarchy for adopting secular liberal mores, mistaking civilizational accommodation for supernatural conversion.
The Syllabus (prop. 77) condemns: “In the present day it is no longer expedient that the Catholic religion should be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other forms of worship.” Prop. 78: “Hence it has been wisely decided by law, in some Catholic countries, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the public exercise of their own peculiar worship.” The article’s enthusiasm for Saudi “openness” reveals the conciliar sect’s true god: religious liberty, the “deliramentum” (delirium) condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos. They seek not the conversion of Islam to Christ, but the integration of Islam into the Masonic New World Order.
Indonesian Syncretism: Vatican II as the Bridge to Universal Fraternity
The article highlights Nahdlatul Ulama (NU), the world’s largest Muslim organization (100 million members), which “advocated that ‘citizenship’—open to all—should be the fundamental civic identity, not distinguishing between Muslims and ‘infidels.'” It notes NU’s leader “speaks favorably of finding guidance in the texts of Vatican II” and the R20 summit convened at the G20, supported by Mary Ann Glendon, former US “ambassador to the Holy See,” as advancing “religious foundations for the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
Here the circle closes: Vatican II is explicitly identified as the common ground for a Masonic-Universalist project. The “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (1948) is a Masonic document, rooted in the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789), which Pius VI condemned in Quod aliquantum (1791) as “contrary to the Catholic faith.” The conciliar sect, through its “dialogue,” becomes the chaplain of the Masonic project for a one-world religion. The “R20” (Religion 20) mirrors the G20: a political instrument for global governance. The article’s praise for “citizenship” over religious identity is the realization of the Syllabus error (prop. 39): “The State, as being the origin and source of all rights, is endowed with a certain right not circumscribed by any limits.”
The Sedevacantist Imperative: No Legitimacy, No Mission, No Salvation in the Conciliar Sect
The entire edifice of “Catholic-Islamic relations” described rests on the premise that the men occupying the Vatican since 1958—John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis, and now Leo XIV (Robert Prevost)—are true Vicars of Christ. The Defense of Sedevacantism file demonstrates conclusively, from Bellarmine, Canon 188.4, and Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, that a manifest heretic loses the papacy ipso facto. The conciliar “popes” are manifest heretics by their public profession of religious liberty, ecumenism, and collegiality—errors condemned by the perennial Magisterium. Therefore, they are not popes but usurpers: antipopes.
Consequently:
- Their “addresses,” “declarations,” and “visits” have zero magisterial authority. They are private opinions of heretical laymen (invalidly ordained in the new rite) masquerading as papal acts.
- The “Abrahamic Family House” is not a Catholic church but a Masonic temple. Entering it for “worship” is idolatry.
- The “Zayed Award” received by Francis and Leo XIV is a Masonic decoration honoring the destroyers of the Faith.
- The “dialogue” is not evangelization but apostasy in action—the fulfillment of the Masonic “Fatima operation” described in the context file: “ecumenical reinterpretation” serving “religious relativism” and “Christian-Islamic syncretism.”
Conclusion: The Kingship of Christ or the Republic of Man
Pius XI instituted the Feast of Christ the King precisely “to address the needs of the present times and provide a special remedy against the plague that poisons human society. And this plague is the secularism of our times, so-called laicism.” The article analyzed is a litany of this plague: it knows nothing of the Social Kingship of Christ, the necessity of the Church for salvation, the duty of states to profess the Catholic faith, or the reality of Hell for those who die outside the Ark. It speaks only of “fraternity,” “pluralism,” “citizenship,” “human rights,” and “geopolitical breakthroughs.”
The conciliar sect is the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place (Matt. 24:15). Its “dialogue with Islam” is the dialogue of the Antichrist’s forerunner with the false prophet. True Catholics—those adhering to the integral Faith, the Traditional Latin Mass, and the sedevacantist position—must reject this entire spectacle as diabolical. “Non est aliud nomen sub caelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvari” (Acts 4:12). There is no salvation in “Abrahamic fraternity,” only in the Unam Sanctam Catholicam Ecclesiam.
Source:
25 Years After 9/11, Where Does the Church Stand With Islam? (ncregister.com)
Date: 14.09.2026