The Practical Atheist: Leo XIV.

 Preamble:

"The pot calling the kettle black" is a familiar idiom. I retrieved the sense of this idiom from my memory, with a stroke of amusement, when I saw a quote attributed to the newly elected Modernist Papal Impostor who took the stage name "Leo XIV". 

It is safe to assume that the person who posted the quote saw in it an expression of "Leo XIV's" orthodoxy worthy of admiration.  This quote is an excerpt from his "homily" during the so-called "inaugural Mass of his pontificate". 

"Leo XIV" solemnly judged a certain tendency in many settings today as "practical atheism". Who is he to judge, really?! Unknown to the many he was simply being a pot calling the kettle black. 

The point of this entry to show exactly how... 

The Quote

The quote expressive of "Leo XIV's" supposed insightful X-ray of today's society and also a token of his orthodoxy is shown in the picture above. The full text of the homily can be seen here. 

A candid admission

In all fairness,  it must be admitted that his statement is correct. 

• reducing Jesus Christ to merely a man—even an extraordinary, moral, or charismatic one—constitutes practical atheism because it denies His divine nature. 
• The term practical atheism refers to living as if God does not exist—even if one professes some vague belief in the divine. If Jesus is viewed as no more than a moral example or a social reformer, His teachings lose divine authority. One then picks and chooses what to follow based on human preference rather than divine command. 
• To reduce Jesus to a moral teacher is thus to deny God as He has revealed Himself, which is the core of atheism. 

Shooting oneself in the foot

Now, here is where it gets selfincriminating: this tendency decried by "Leo XIV" is born of Indiffrentism, and is deeply rooted in Modernism condemned by Pope Pius X as the synthesis of all heresies in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907).

Modernism reduces the supernatural to psychological or sociological phenomena. Seeing Christ as a mere moral hero is typical of Modernist thought. Yes, such a view makes religion man-centered instead of God-centered, leading to practical atheism even when cloaked in Christian language. 

Before Pope Pius X, Pope Leo XIII explicitly linked indifferentism to atheism in his encyclical, Immortale Dei, 1885:

...To hold, therefore, that there is no difference in matters of religion between forms that are unlike each other, and even contrary to each other, most clearly leads in the end to the rejection of all religion in both theory and practice. And this is the same thing as atheism, however it may differ from it in name. ( Immortale Dei, no. 31)

Now, by his single-minded commitment to the execution of the so-called Vatican II council, "Leo XIV" in effect has been promoting and still promotes a species of the very Indifferentism he dares to condemn most solemnly. 

Vatican II's ecumenism, religious liberty, religious dialogue, intereligious worship, all stem from the same indiffrentism which Pope Leo XIII condemned as being "the same thing as atheism" which translates as "practical atheism". 

Fruits of indiffrentism (i.e. practical atheism) in Vatican II

A. Vatican II’s Dignitatis Humanae (1965) claims a civil right to religious liberty based on human dignity, even for false religions.

• This contradicts Catholic teaching that error has no rights and that the State has a duty to recognize and support the true religion (see Leo XIII, Libertas, 1888).
• It elevates individual choice over objective truth, treating all religions as equally valid paths in the public order.

B. Interreligious Dialogue as promoted especially in Nostra Aetate (1965), which speaks positively of non-Christian religions:

• Assumes truth and sanctification can be found in false religions, minimizing the necessity of the true Faith, the Catholic Faith.
• Puts religious consciousness on equal footing with divine revelation (a condemned modernist tendency, see Pascendi, no. 9) 
• It assumes that any religion is as good as the other, what is required is a spirit of dialogue between all the available religions and collaboration. 

C. Ecumenism which seeks unity among those who lay claims to the Christian name without conversion to Catholicism, seen in Unitatis Redintegratio (1964): 

• Is contrary to the Catholic doctrine that unity can only be achieved by returning to the one true Church (see Mortalium Animos by Pius XI).
• suggests multiple “churches” may validly form the Body of Christ. This is infact the proscribed "Branch Theory".

D. Interreligious Worship with non-Catholics (e.g., Assisi prayer meetings) imply common worship with those outside the Church.

• Such acts are forbidden in Catholic Canon 1258 §1 (1917 Code): “It is not permitted at all to take part in any way in non-Catholic religious ceremonies.”
• It treats worship of the true God and of idols or false conceptions of God as mutually acceptable.

Who, in his right Catholic senses, would deny that the above mentioned are fruits of indiffrentism which:

• Places subjective freedom over objective truth.
• Downplays the necessity of the Church for salvation.
• Treats false religions with reverence instead of refuting their errors ?

A More Recently Matured Fruit 

Another fruit from the same seed of Modernist indiffrentistism that only got  matured recently is "synodality", to which "Leo XIV" is also fully committed. 

Anyone with an informed Catholic Sense knows that modernist synodality is not a deeper application of Catholic Tradition but a symptom of Modernist indiffrentistism. It:

• Promotes a Horizontal, Not Hierarchical, Vision of the Church, de-emphasizing the Church’s divine constitution. 
• Promotes a "synodal church": a so-called listening church, and a "church in dialogue". 
• Insists on a so-called "synodal way" which propose radical changes to immutable doctrines, e.g. approval of contraception, female ordination, blessing of same-sex unions, etc., a reflection of the Modernist error that dogma evolves with time and culture. 

Summing Up

Pope Pius X noted that in Modernist books 

...we find certain things which a Catholic entirely approves, yet on turning the page certain things which one could think were dictated by a rationalist... 

In "Leo XIV's" quote which got us started we see indeed what "a Catholic entirely approves", don't we?  Meanwhile, turn to the next "page", his first speech, what do we see? They:

• He affirms  God loves "us" unconditionally. 
• He speaks about building bridges through dialogue and encounter, in the footsteps of his immediate predecessor in the Modernist Papal imposture. 
• He affirms that "we want a synodal church, a Church that moves forward..." 

Would any Catholic approve any of these? How could he when they either indicate sentimentalism and Indifferentism, undermine the need for repentance and conversion, or contradict God's justice: things explicitly condemned, to which condemnation every Catholic conscience is bound!? 

What is the point at issue? Precisely this: "Leo XIV" is a "pot calling the kettle black" as the saying goes: 

• To the extent he promotes the fruits of modernist Indifferentism (religious liberty, ecumenism, interreligious dialogue, interreligious worship, synodality etc) he is a thorough going modernist practical atheist and is committed to promoting it over and over again, 
• but dares to condemn a certain manifestion of practical atheism which is itself rooted in Modernist indiffrentistism and is a typical Modernist thought. 

While those who love not the truth and are therefore given to the operation of error to believe modernist lies and take their imposture seriously, continue to cheer and swell, an informed Catholic Sense beholding the dismal drama can't help but tune:

The Imitator of Leo, enthroned in pride, 

Practical atheist, his kind he dares to chide.

Fruits of the same poisoned root: 

indifferentism, Modernist cherished loot

---