作者/来源： frtjojeka blogspot com
序言
“锅嫌壶黑”——这句俗话谁都懂。那天我看见有人引用新当选的现代派伪教皇的一句话——这人给自己起了个艺名叫“良十四世”——当时我脑子里就冒出这句话来，忍不住觉得好笑。
发这段话的人，八成以为良十四世这话说明他信仰纯正，值得夸赞。这段话摘自他在那场所谓的“教宗就职弥撒”上讲的“道理”。
良十四世在那篇道理里一本正经地指责当今许多地方的某种风气，管它叫“实用无神论”。可话说回来，他凭什么指责别人呢？！好些人不知道，他这不过是锅嫌壶黑罢了。
我写这篇东西，就是想说明他到底怎么个锅嫌壶黑——
那段话
上面这张图里的话，有人觉得既显出良十四世对当今社会看得透彻，又证明了他信仰纯正。那篇道理全文可以点这儿看。
实话实说
平心而论，得承认他这话没说错。
把耶稣基督只当作一个普通人——哪怕是个了不起的、品德高尚的、魅力非凡的普通人——这本身就是实用无神论，因为这么一来，基督的天主性就给抹杀了。所谓“实用无神论”，就是嘴上说信天主，过日子却像天主根本不存在一样。要是耶稣只不过是个道德榜样、社会改革家，那他的教导还有什么神圣的权威？人就可以挑挑拣拣，合自己胃口的就听，不合的就扔一边，全凭个人喜好，而不是听天主的命。所以说，把耶稣贬成一个教人为善的老师，就是不认天主对自己的启示——这正是无神论的根本。
搬起石头砸自己的脚
问题就出在这儿：良十四世骂的这种风气，其实是从“冷漠主义”肚子里生出来的，根子扎在“现代主义”里头。而现代主义这东西，教宗庇护十世早在1907年《牧放主羊》通谕里就给它定了性：它是“集所有异端之大成”。
现代主义把超性的事，硬说成心理现象、社会现象。把基督只看成一个道德英雄，这纯粹是现代主义思想的典型做派。这么看宗教，就变成以人为中心，不是以天主为中心了——哪怕嘴上还挂着基督徒的词儿，最后还得掉进实用无神论的坑里。
在教宗庇护十世之前，教宗良十三世早在1885年的《永恒天主》通谕里，就把冷漠主义和无神论明明白白拴在一起说了：
“所以，要是觉得宗教这事儿，就算形式不同、甚至彼此顶着干，也没什么两样，那到头来，不管在道理上还是过日子上，肯定就把所有宗教都撂一边了。这不就是无神论吗？就算名目不一样，骨子里没差别。”（《永恒天主》31条）
现如今，良十四世死心塌地要推行那个所谓的梵二会议，实际上他一直在推、到现在还在推的，正是他胆敢一本正经骂的那种冷漠主义。
梵二会议搞的大公合一运动、宗教自由、宗教对话、跨宗教敬拜——这些东西，全是从同一种冷漠主义里长出来的。而良十三世说了，这种冷漠主义“跟无神论没两样”，翻成通俗话就是“实用无神论”。
梵二会议里冷漠主义（也就是实用无神论）结的果子:
A. 宗教自由
梵二会议的《人类尊严》宣言（1965年）说，人因为有人性尊严，就有权利选择宗教信仰，哪怕信的是假的，也有这个公民权。
这可跟天主教的传统教义对不上茬儿——传统教义是这么说的：错误本身没什么权利可言，国家有责任认准真正的宗教、扶持真正的宗教（参看良十三世1888年《自由》通谕）。这么一整，就把个人选择捧到客观真理头上了，搞得所有宗教在公共场合好像都成了同样走得通的道儿。
B. 宗教对话
《教会对非基督宗教态度》宣言（1965年）特别提倡这个，对非基督宗教说了不少好话：
它觉着，假的宗教里头也能找着真理、也能让人成圣——这话一说，真正的信仰（也就是天主教信仰）就没那么非信不可了。它把人的宗教感觉，抬到跟天主启示平起平坐的份儿上（这种现代主义的毛病早就挨过批，见《牧放主羊》第9条）。它以为哪个宗教也不比哪个差，大家伙儿只要有个对话的精神，能搭把手合作，这就齐了。
C. 大公合一运动
《大公合一》法令（1964年）提倡的，是跟那些自称基督徒、却没皈依天主教的人搞联合。
这跟天主教教义拧着劲儿——教义说得明白：合一只有一条道，就是回到那唯一真正的教会（参看庇护十一世《人类通谕》）。它这话里透着个意思：好像好多个“教会”都能拼成基督的身体。这其实就是教会早就明令禁止的“分支理论”。
D. 跨宗教敬拜
跟非天主教徒一块儿做礼拜，意思就是跟教会外边的人一块儿敬拜天主。
天主教法典1258条1项（1917年法典）明令禁止这事儿：“参与非天主教的宗教仪式，无论如何都不行。”这么一来，敬拜真神跟拜偶像、拜错了神的，就好像都行、都能凑合。
只要是个脑子清楚的天主教徒，谁能不认账：上面这些，不都是冷漠主义结的果子？
这一套下来——真理得给自由让路，得救的门槛给踩平了，假的东西倒成了座上宾，主观自由捧上天，客观真理就得靠后站。至于那些错谬的宗教，不仅不驳，还得给人留面子。
现代主义冷漠主义的这粒种籽，还结了另一个果子，直到最近才熟透——这就是“同道偕行”。良十四世对这套也是死心塌地。
但凡懂点天主教道理的人都知道，现代主义这套“同道偕行”，根本不是把天主教传统往深里挖，而是现代主义冷漠主义露出来的毛病。
他鼓吹的那套，说白了就三样：教会别讲什么等级了，大家平起平坐——那天主定的规矩怎么办？不管了。又弄出个“同道偕行的教会”，美其名曰“竖着耳朵听的教会”、“搞对话的教会”，其实就是谁嗓门大听谁的。最要命的是，他死抱着那个“同道偕行之道”，想把那些改不了的教条也翻个篇——什么避孕啊、女人当神父啊、给同性伴侣祝福啊，都想着能松一松。这不就是现代主义的老底儿露出来了么：教义嘛，时代变了就得跟着变。
教宗庇护十世早就说过，翻那些现代主义的书，经常是：“有些地方，天主教徒看了，一百个赞成；可翻过一页，又有些地方，瞅着就跟唯理主义者写的似的……”
咱们开头引的良十四那段话，确实有让人赞成的地方，对不对？可翻到“下一页”，瞧瞧他第一次演讲都说了些什么：
——天主无条件地爱“咱们”
——要学他前任那个现代派教皇方某人，靠对话、靠相遇，搭桥铺路
——“咱们要的是一个同道偕行的教会，一个往前走的教会……”
哪个天主教徒能赞成这些？这话能听吗？要么是感情用事、搞冷漠主义那一套，要么是把悔改皈依的必要性说得轻飘飘，要么干脆跟天主的公义对着干——这些东西，天主可是明明白白骂过的，每个天主教徒都得凭良心掂量掂量！
所以，说到底，问题在哪儿？就在这儿：良十四世，照老话说，就是“锅嫌壶黑”。
他既然鼓吹现代主义冷漠主义的那些果子（宗教自由、大公合一运动、宗教对话、跨宗教敬拜、同道偕行什么的），那他自己就是个彻头彻尾的现代主义实用无神论者，还一门心思反复鼓吹这套。可他倒有脸去骂某一种实用无神论的表现——他不想想，这种表现的根儿，就扎在现代主义冷漠主义里头，是典型的现代主义想法。
那些不爱真理的人，天主就任凭他们鬼迷心窍，去信那些现代主义的瞎话，把骗局当真格的。他们还在那儿欢呼雀跃、使劲捧场呢。可明白事理的天主教徒，瞅着这出寒碜人的闹剧，只能忍不住哼上两句：
学良的端坐高堂，骂别人无神荒唐；
毒根结毒果一样，冷漠主义他珍藏。
附原文:
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 seenhere.
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 toreligious 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: