Intro: Luciferian theosophy, or new occult pantheist spirituality, came out of the closet in 1875 with the founding of the Theosophical Society by Helena Petrovna Blavatsky, a Russian atheist Jew by birth. The Society is a worldwide association of powerful Globalists and their confederates throughout Western and American civilization dedicated to the realization of the oneness of all life (monism/pantheism), that ‘god’ or ‘christ consciousness’ (Lucifer) is within, and Lucifer, the Serpent of Genesis is,
“…the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is he who was the “Harbinger of Light,” bright radiant Lucifer, who opened the eyes of the automaton created by Jehovah, as alleged; and he who was the first to whisper: “in the day ye eat thereof ye shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil” – can only be regarded in the light of a Saviour. An “adversary” to Jehovah the “personating spirit,” he still remains in esoteric truth the ever-loving “Messenger” (the angel), the Seraphim and Cherubim who both knew well, and loved still more, and who conferred on us spiritual, instead of physical immortality – the latter a kind of static immortality that would have transformed man into an undying “Wandering Jew”.” (The Secret Doctrine, Vol. 2, p. 243)
Satan is the one spirit operating within all of the world’s modern and ancient nature religions. The core doctrine of Theosophy is to the point: Chosen men and women have been evolving spiritually across successive ages, guided by hidden masters toward eventual godhood. Thus, there is no need for Jesus Christ or His cross in this sinless religious god-man system. There is only the climb up the astral planes of reincarnation toward the divine spark at the top.
Luciferian Theosophy is poised to become the one religion of the NWO, and it appears that Leo might be catering to the would-be Western god men of the world who are inspired by Satan, the only spirit operating within all of the world’s nature religions. If the Vatican falls, how long before weak elements of the Orthodox, Protestant, and Presbyterian church join the fraternity of global oneness according to the teaching of Leo XIV, who said: “the uncompromising defense of one’s own position and proselytism … make no sense in a world that increasingly resembles a globally interconnected village in constant ferment.” Instead of evangelizing and seeking the conversion of unbelievers, the call is to “fraternity among believers of different religious traditions,” which “is not a mere ideal, but a moral, spiritual, and social imperative.” [pars. 54 and 58″. @Linda
Read On
Robert Morrison, Remnant Columnist, Sept 17, 2026
In a new document marking sixty years of Nostra Aetate, Leo XIV and three Vatican dicasteries defend interreligious dialogue, religious pluralism, and a “fraternal society capable of accepting differences.” But hold on… Can Catholicism affirm that Christ is the Way, the Truth, and the Life while simultaneously treating religious pluralism as a positive goal? The Vatican’s own language increasingly makes the theological problem with Vatican II impossible to ignore.
On September 16, Leo XIV added his signature to a document produced by the Dicasteries for the Doctrine of the Faith, for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and for Interreligious Dialogue: “A Journey of Hope: Sixty Years of Interreligious Dialogue and Fraternity in the Light of the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate.” The sixty-paragraph document outlines the history of Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate and the ways in which interreligious dialogue has developed since its promulgation. As interesting (and troubling) as those details are, the more important aspect of this new document is its unabashed explanation of the anti-Catholic compromises at the heart of Nostra Aetate and the entire Vatican II revolution.
Missing from this analysis is the actual criteria given to us by Our Lord: ‘If you love me, keep my commandments.
DIALOGUE TO SUPPORT RELIGIOUS PLURALISM
Paragraph 22 of the new document may surprise some readers because it appears to defend Catholic orthodoxy, especially with its final sentence. However, this paragraph also refers to dialogue as “an indispensable condition for coexistence within pluralistic societies”:
“In continuity with the Second Vatican Council, these texts articulate two inseparable requirements whose relevance remains undiminished. To those who might be tempted to insist exclusively on the obligation to proclaim Christ, they recall that Nostra Aetate also affirms the necessity of dialogue with other religious traditions, since such dialogue is now ‘a part of the Church’s evangelizing mission.’ Conversely, to those who tend to relativize their own religious identity, the same Declaration recalls the need for fidelity to Jesus Christ, ‘the Way, the Truth, and the Life’ (Jn 14:6). Dialogue, therefore, presupposes a clear awareness of one’s own religious and cultural identity, together with a genuine openness to otherness, which is an indispensable condition for coexistence within pluralistic societies. It must be free of ambiguity, avoiding relativism and syncretism, with the fullest possible affirmation of identity and the fullest possible commitment to dialogue.” (22)
This insistence on dialogue in service of religious pluralism is itself anti-Catholic because supporting pluralism cannot be a legitimate goal of Catholic missionary work. In religious discussions with non-Catholics, one cannot simultaneously avoid relativism and uphold pluralism — a Catholic must choose between (a) affirming that the Catholic Faith is the true religion to which God wants all souls to adhere, and (b) denying or obscuring this truth.
Moreover, in his One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Dominique Bourmaud explained why the ideas in this paragraph 22 of the new document follow Freemasonry:
“The intention of the late Pope [John Paul II] was neither conversion nor syncretism but ‘legitimate pluralism,’ according to which all religions offer their prayers for peace in a profound fidelity to their respective religious traditions. In reality, this ‘legitimate pluralism’ is only a euphemism for the syncretism so hastily denied. There is nothing legitimate about a pluralism of credos unless we consider the essence of religion and the only common ground to be a certain impulse toward the divine. By that definition, Lucifer is certainly the most religious of all creatures, for he most ardently desired to become God. The central theme at every interreligious meeting is the moral unity of all religions, which implies that none of them is given precedence. From the outset, the exclusivity and the veracity of the Church of Jesus Christ are cast aside. Such is precisely the definition of Freemasonry, which claims that its moral code and religion are rich because they are not exclusive. Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, free-thinkers, and free-believers–to each his first name, but all carry the great family name of Freemason.”
As we can see, the anti-Catholic support of pluralism is an evil that certainly predates Leo and even Francis. As the new document suggests, this was built into Nostra Aetate.
“What about respect for God? Would He have anything to say about this matter?”
A UNIVERSAL CRITERION OF DISCERNMENT”
Whereas paragraph 22 included some Catholic elements, paragraph 32 eschews Catholicism altogether:
“Nevertheless, it is important to remember that ‘dialogue is not a magic formula.’ It does not happen on its own, and those who engage in it must be neither naïve nor blindly idealistic: they are called to be the ‘heroes of the future.’ Rejecting both withdrawal into identity and the logic of aggression, they undertake a middle path, which is demanding yet fruitful: the path of patiently building human fraternity. A fundamental principle must always guide their actions: the awareness that believing in God and worshiping him does not necessarily guarantee a life in accordance with his will. Hence arises the importance of a universal criterion of discernment that can be found in the sacred texts of the various religions: namely, whether one welcomes or rejects the wounded person lying by the roadside. Concrete concern for the most vulnerable is the essential measure by which the integrity of every project—whether political, economic, social, academic, religious, or cultural—must be judged. The poor, in all the forms their vulnerability may take, are the compass that allows us to know whether we are moving in the right direction.” (32)
The key to understanding this paragraph is the reference to “the sacred texts of various religions.” This reference approaches blasphemy of itself but the context makes it even worse because it posits that “concern for the most vulnerable” is the way in which we can discern whether or not a person is doing God’s will. Thus, according to this “universal criterion of discernment,” a non-Christian who tends to the poor is more pleasing to God than a devout Catholic who might have no interactions with the poor. Missing from this analysis is the actual criteria given to us by Our Lord: “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).
ABANDONING OUR RELIGIOUS POSITIONS
Paragraph 54 tells us that we must abandon our determination to adhere to and defend the truths of the Catholic Faith:
“To achieve this goal, a genuine shift in mindset is necessary: abandoning the logic of defensiveness, hostility, or conquest in order to adopt an attitude that is open, benevolent, and courageous. Monolithic and isolated models, which encourage a closed view of reality, are proving increasingly inadequate and, ultimately, become sources of violence and suffering for the most vulnerable. The defensive entrenchment in one’s own position and the view that proselytism is the only way to engage with the other no longer make sense in a world that increasingly resembles an interconnected and constantly evolving global village.” (54)
Naturally, interreligious dialogue cannot succeed in building a “fraternal society capable of accepting differences” unless Catholics abandon their views about defending the orthodoxy of their Faith. This is one key reason why the entire Vatican II revolution opposes Traditional Catholicism.
ALL RELIGIONS AS FRATERNAL EXPRESSIONS OF GOD’S WILL
Lest anyone miss the point, paragraph 58 of the new document emphasizes that it is a moral imperative to overcome our prejudices against the religious beliefs of others: :
“In a world that is both profoundly interconnected and also deeply fragmented, the message of Nostra Aetate remains highly relevant. Fraternity among believers of different religious traditions is not merely an ideal, but a moral, spiritual, and social imperative. Faced with contemporary challenges—religious extremism, global migration, secularization, and ecological and social crises—religions are called to transform the world and society so that they may become fraternal expressions of God’s will. This commitment necessarily involves a renewed education in dialogue, especially among younger generations, to overcome fears and prejudices and to foster a genuine culture of encounter.” (58)
Gone is the truth that Catholicism is the only religion positively willed by God. Here, as we heard at various times from Francis, we see that all religions “may become fraternal expressions of God’s will” by transforming the world and society.
As offensive as this new document is, at least it is honest about the anti-Catholic compromises at the heart of Nostra Aetate and the entire Vatican II revolution. And, as we have seen so often, this provides us with another sign that today’s Vatican is opposing God’s will: they will accept and defend essentially any set of religious beliefs other than unadulterated Catholicism. We may not know why God is permitting this diabolical disorientation from Rome, but it seems more clear than ever that Catholics of good will must reject the Vatican II revolution and return to what the Church has always taught. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!