Professor, Galahad has focused on the title of this news to let all know this is a Vat II fruit.

But actually this is the coat of arms of some ultraliberal friend of Francis, this is the look of the new Church.

I was debating with an MDM follower recently, he was telling me all this things have been foretold by Jesus through her, and had to leave the debate there because the Church of today is more of the world than of heaven, I have to, we all have ti pray more as all prophecies from the saints are collading in this papacy more like any other before.

I do not know exactly who is proposing the "Vat II New Church" creed. Perhaps @Galahad can clarify that for me. Let me, however, comment upon the last thesis, i.e., the "tree with religions icons (? religion ?).

1. During my teaching stint (during Benedict's reign) at Seminario Redemptoris Mater in Brasilia, the aspirant priests were taught to see "Jesus" in each person or Jesus' love for each person. If this is what is mean by "the Divine in each person" I cannot see any specific problem. a. If, however, it is being claimed that a sort of incarnation of Divine/human constitues everyone, this is heresy. I see no reason to think that this is so. b. If the content of the thesis is intended as a historical assertion concerning the nature per se of religion, it is wildly wrong. This is not the place for a theory of religion. But, neither Roman polytheism nor Aztec sacrificing began with seeing the Divine in each person. c. What is the meaning of this blatantly false assertion concerning the nature of religion per se? Here I suspect that it is slighly being suggester that ALL religions are from the very sameuniversal tree because all see the Divine in everyone, etc. False! The Aztecs needed to conquer other tribles so as to sacrifice said captives to the blood lust of their gods.

2. "Being open to dialogue"? Should one reeally have sat down with Adolf Hitler 1944 and blah-blahed about the "final solution" or should one have killed him right on the spot? I bet, however, that dialoguing with leftists and communists would be fine for the current Pope, unless the communist was Stalin or Lenin and, in the blink of an eye, one would be hanged. So, dialogue is a blah-blah category with one purpose, namely to direct one to talk with the others, but do not try to convert them. And this would be quite false!

3. "To seek the good of the other": Fine, but what is the "good" for each and every "other"? The Nazi leaders given a trial at Nürnburg, found guilty and executed received the "good" for their humanity as it would have been a mockery of justice not to have allowed them to pay for their crimes in this world. God judges for eternity. To have "rehabilitated" Göring and then sent him to do good for Jews would be a mockery of reality. Hess was sent to prision for life and argueably became so insane in prison that he killed himself. This was not the "good" that Hess needed. The maxim suggested is too vague, though I suspect it intends a mission of "goody-goodism"

Points 2 and 3 are not essential to Catholic religion, though nice as an effect. What is disturbing is, indeed, point 1. It appears to me that an underhanded thesis is being pushed on the unwary reader, namely, all religions are the "fruit" (better and less offensive than "icon") of the one original nature of religion. This interpretation suggest (post)modernism and reeks of confessional indifferentism.