Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine? An Account From One Who Was There

Fatima.org ^ | November, 2003 | John Vennari

[Land of the Irish]

Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine?

An Account From One Who Was There

by John Vennari

        From October 10-12, 2003, a pan-religious conference was held at Fatima entitled "The Present of Man – the Future of God: The Place of Sanctuaries in the Relation to the Sacred". It was held at the Paul VI Pastoral Center adjacent to the Fatima Shrine in Portugal. I traveled to Fatima to cover the Congress and attended the three-day event. It contained some of the most explicit heresy I have ever encountered.

        It described itself as a "Scientific" Congress, which is not the word we would use for it in North America. Here, we would label it an "Academic" Congress. In any case, the Congress comprised modern theologians and clergymen discussing the importance of religious sanctuaries – any sanctuary, be it Catholic, Buddhist or Hindu.

        The first two days contained numerous speeches from Catholics only, including the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, D. Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva; the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon, Jose da Cruz Policarpo; the notorious "interfaith theologian", Father Jacques Dupuis; and various other Ph.D.’s from Portugal.

        On Sunday, in sessions presided over by Archbishop Michael J. Fitzgerald, Prefect of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, representatives from the world religions — including Buddhist, Hindu, Islam, Orthodox, Anglican and Catholic — gave testimony to the importance of "sanctuary" in their religious traditions.

        Later, the Portuguese press published that the aim of this Congress was to establish Fatima as an interfaith Shrine.

The Sunday morning interreligious session presided over by Archbishop Fitzgerald. Here he sits with a Buddhist, a Hindu and a Muslim.

The Ecumenical Congress

        The theme of "Sanctuary" for this Congress reflects the lowest-common-denominator ecumenism prevalent for the past forty years. It is an approach that plays down doctrinal differences in the various religions and emphasizes "what we have in common".

        What do all religions have in common? They all believe in some sort of "God", so we can organize an ecumenical symposium and talk about the various aspects of "God". All religions believe in prayer, so we can have a pan-religious get-together where we can all "share" about prayer. All religions have sanctuaries, so we can hold an interfaith Congress where we talk about the importance of Sanctuaries in the various religious traditions. Thus, "Sanctuary", within the pan-religious perspective, was the focus of the latest Congress at Fatima.

        Anathema at these Congresses is any recognition of the fact that the Catholic Church is the one true religion established and willed by God, and that all other religions are false, man-made systems whose adherents believe in false gods. As such, these religions constitute an objective mortal sin against the First Commandment: "I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before Me." The false gods of Buddhism, Hinduism and Islam are "strange gods" that the First Commandment forbids all of mankind to worship.

        This applies also to Protestantism, since Protestants believe in a Christ who never existed. They believe in a Christ who did not establish a Church to teach, govern and sanctify all men. They believe in a Christ who did not establish a Papacy. They believe in a Christ who does not want us to honor His Holy Mother Mary. (And we know from the Fatima Message that God wants to establish in the world devotion to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart). They believe in a Christ who did not establish seven Sacraments as the primary means of grace for salvation. They believe in a Christ who did not establish the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. In short, Protestants worship a false Christ, that is, a false God. This is why Blessed Pope Pius IX taught in his 1864 Syllabus that it is an error to believe that "Protestantism is nothing more than another form of the same true Christian religion."[1]

        Thus, in the objective order, it is impossible for any non-Catholic, no matter how well-meaning, to obey the First Commandment.[2] We can thus understand why the Council of Trent spoke infallibly that without the Catholic Faith, "it is impossible to please God".

        This traditional, true Catholic doctrine is discarded at these interfaith events, and in ecumenical practice in general. Conversely, the new ecumenical theology says that members of all religions are part of the "Reign of God", and are "equal partners in dialogue". The Catholic religion may possess the "fullness of truth", but all other religions are part of God’s plan as well. This, particularly, is the thesis of the modernist theologian Father Jacques Dupuis, who spoke at the Congress on Saturday afternoon.

Poster containing logo of Congress.

Friday’s Sessions

        At first, I was skeptical of whether I could give a fair assessment of the Congress. The speeches were delivered in Portuguese, a language I do not speak. The Congress provided simultaneous translation into English, but the English translators were not very good. One man doing translations was practically worthless. I could tell I was getting from him one-sentence summaries of entire paragraphs from the speakers’ texts, and not very intelligible sentences at that. Luckily, two of the most important talks were delivered in English.

        From what I could gather from the Portuguese speakers, they talked about "Sanctuary" in general terms in trendy New-Church language: "Sanctuary is an altar of purification and promise", a "place of refuge in the face of temptation to pleasure and power". "Sanctuary" is part of the "mystery" in the "search for holiness, incarnation and transcendence". Keep in mind, the speakers refer here to the religious sanctuaries of all religions, whether they be Shrines of Our Lady or pagan temples.

        One would think that a Fatima Congress on Sanctuary would contain at least one lecture on the Fatima Sanctuary. Nothing. Fatima was only brought up incidentally, and every great once in a while. The Fatima Message, or even the history of how the Fatima Shrine came to be, received no spotlight. The Rosary, the Immaculate Heart, the vision of hell, the Five First Saturdays, Reparation for Sin, all constitutive elements of the Fatima Message, received no mention at all.

        On Friday, we received lectures that dealt with the "Pastoral/Scientific Nature of Sanctuary". We were told, "What happens in the Shrine is an expression of the people of God in motion." One professor quoted glowingly the modernist Father Edward Schillebeeckx’s bizarre statement: "the history of salvation is not necessarily the history of revelation". Another speaker spoke of Fatima, Mecca and Kyoto in the same breath, thus placing the true Church of Christ on the same level with false creeds; and placing the true revelations of Our Lady of Fatima – an event verified by the Miracle of the Sun before 70,000 people – on the same level with the fables and superstitions of false religions. This is a mockery of the true God and a blasphemy against Our Lady of Fatima.[3]

At this Fatima Congress, Father Jacques Dupuis openly scorns defined Church dogma.

Father Dupuis

        As mentioned, two of the most important presentations were delivered in English: the ecumenical Father Jacques Dupuis on Saturday, and a brief address by Archbishop Michael J. Fitzgerald on Sunday. These I understood perfectly, and was horrified by what was said.

        As some readers may be aware, I have covered a number of these post-Conciliar conferences including New Evangelization Seminars, Rock’n’Roll World Youth Days, screaming Charismatic meetings, and evenings of Jewish-Catholic dialogue.[4] Yet the most explicit heresy I have ever heard at any of these events came from the mouth of the Belgian Jesuit Father Jacques Dupuis, only a few hundred yards from where Our Lady of Fatima appeared.

        Father Jacques Dupuis is a progressivist, ecumenical theologian who entered the Jesuits in 1941. At this Congress, he propounded his thesis that all religions are positively willed by God. He told us that we should not refer to the other religions as "non-Christian", since this is a negative term that describes them "by what we think they are not". Rather, he said, we should refer to them as "the others".

        He trashes the truth that there is only one true Church, outside of which there is no salvation, despite the fact that this teaching was infallibly defined three times. The most forceful and explicit definition of "outside the Church there is no salvation" was pronounced de fide from the Council of Florence:

"The Most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics, and schismatics can ever be partakers of eternal life, but that they are to go into the eternal fire ‘which was prepared for the devil and his angels,’ (Mt. 25:41) unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this Ecclesiastical Body, that only those remaining within this unity can profit from the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and that they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, almsdeeds, and other works of Christian piety and duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved unless they abide within the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church."[5]

        As Catholics know, whenever the true Church established by Christ — the Catholic Church — teaches a solemn, de fide declaration, it is stating infallibly that the doctrine defined is a truth revealed by God "Who can neither deceive nor be deceived." A Catholic must believe all of these defined truths for salvation. To deny an infallible dogma of the Church is to call God a liar, telling Him that what He revealed to us is not true.[6]

        Saint Louis de Montfort, faithful to this revealed truth, teaches, "There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this Truth perishes."[7] Likewise, Saint Alphonsus Liguori, Doctor of the Church, reaffirms, "The Holy, Roman, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is the only true Church, outside the pale of which no one can be saved."[8]

        Yet Father Dupuis, at the recent Fatima Congress, openly showered contempt on this defined truth and on the teaching of the Saints and Doctors of the Church. On the point of "outside the Church there is no salvation", Father Dupuis said in disgust, "There is no need to invoke here that horrible text from the Council of Florence in 1442". I heard this with my own ears and I recorded it on tape.

        Thus, Father Dupuis told the audience that an infallible definition of the Catholic Church is wrong, and that the Divine Revelation of God is a lie.

        This is the most explicit heresy I have ever encountered at one of these post-Conciliar conferences. Usually the speakers dance around the dogma they deny, but not Father Dupuis. No, he says openly that a defined Catholic doctrine is a "horrible text" that must be rejected.

        Now, how did those at the conference react to Father Dupuis’ audacity? With grand applause at the end of his speech.

        Most disturbing is the fact that the room contained the "top-brass" of the Portuguese hierarchy, all thrilled with Dupuis’ apostasy.

        Seated directly to my left was the Fatima Shrine Rector Monsignor Luciano Guerra, who applauded Father Dupuis’ speech. (I captured this on film, see photo). Seated directly to my right was the Apostolic Delegate of Portugal, that is, the papal representative for Portugal, who also applauded Dupuis. Joining in the applause was the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, D. Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, who still refuses to allow an "Indult" Tridentine Mass in his diocese.

Msgr. Luciano Guerra, the Fatima Shrine Rector, applauding Dupuis' heresy.

        During the applause, I could not see the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon from my seat. But it is certain that he agrees with Dupuis’ ecumenical thesis. Later the same day, a small group of young traditional Catholics questioned the Cardinal about the new interreligious orientation. A youth quoted to the Cardinal a passage from the book of Sister Lucy, Calls from the Message of Fatima, where she faithfully explained the First Commandment. The Cardinal responded, "Sister Lucy is no longer a point of reference today since we have such a good one in the Second Vatican Council".[9] In other words, the Cardinal says that Vatican II’s new ecumenical teaching eclipses the traditional Catholic teaching on the First Commandment, which forbids the worship of false Gods, as reflected in the writings of Sister Lucy.

        For years, concerned Catholics have said that the reason Fatima is now downplayed and eclipsed is because the new ecumenical religion of Vatican II has replaced it.[10] I am grateful that the Cardinal abandoned all pretense and admitted this disgrace outright. It explains why the present ecumenical hierarchy falsely consider Fatima to be of little importance.

        At the Congress, Father Dupuis also said that the purpose of dialogue is not to convert the non-Catholic but rather to help "the Christian to become a better Christian, and the Hindu a better Hindu".

        Father Dupuis further lectured that "Christians and ‘the others’ are co-members of the Reign of God in history". He also said that "the Holy Spirit is present and operative in the sacred books of Hinduism or of Buddhism. That He is present and operative in the sacred rites of Hinduism". Thus, according to Dupuis, the Holy Ghost is active and present in the "sacred rites" and "sacred books" of false religions. No wonder a prominent ecumenical Catholic kissed the Koran.

        A more detailed exposition of Father Dupuis’ apostate lecture will appear in a future installment. For now, I want to re-emphasize that the Congress delegates — including the Cardinal of Lisbon, the Bishop of Fatima, and the Rector of the Fatima Shrine — applauded Dupuis as magnificent. Worse still, the next day, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, told the Congress "Father Dupuis yesterday explained the theological basis of the establishment of relations with people of other religions." In other words, Archbishop Fitzgerald praised Father Dupuis’ heresies.

        Archbishop Fitzgerald said further that he agreed with Father Dupuis that "the unity with God is not confined to the people who belong to the Church". The Church, according to this new union, should not proselytize. Nor is the purpose of dialogue to "convert" the "other" to Catholicism. This is pointless, since members of all religions, according to Dupuis, are already part of the "Reign of God". Rather, "the Church" says Fitzgerald, "is there to recognize the holiness that is in other people, the elements of truth, grace and beauty that are in different religions," and "to try to bring about a greater peace and harmony among people of other religions". Perhaps this Congress should have been called, "Fatima Meets the Age of Aquarius".

Archbishop Fitzgerald

Catholic Truth vs. the New Religion

        Anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of the Catholic Faith knows that the interfaith religion promoted at this Fatima Conference is contrary to Catholic teaching and is a blasphemy before God. As mentioned, the Council of Trent defined infallibly that without the Catholic Faith, "it is impossible to please God."[11] The Catholic Church also defined three times ex cathedra that there is only one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, outside of which there is no salvation.[12] And as Vatican I teaches, not even a Pope can change defined dogma, otherwise dogmatic truths were never true.[13]

        Blessed Pope Pius IX reiterated the truth "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation" while combating the growing "Liberal Catholicism" of his day. He said:

"We must mention and condemn again that most pernicious error which has been imbibed by certain Catholics who are of the opinion that those people who live in error and have not the true faith and are separated from Catholic unity, may obtain life everlasting. Now this opinion is most contrary to the Catholic faith, as is evident from the plain words of Our Lord, (Matt 18:17; Mark 16:16; Luke 10:16; John 3:18) as also from the words of Saint Paul (2 Tit. 3:11) and of Saint Peter (2 Peter 2:1). To entertain opinions contrary to this Catholic faith is to be an impious wretch."[14]

        Pope Leo XIII, elaborating the same doctrine, taught, "since no one is allowed to be remiss in the service due to God ... we are bound absolutely to worship God in that way which He has shown to be His will ... It cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion if it only be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking . . . From all these [proofs] it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and propagate."[15]

        Likewise, Pope Pius XII restated this doctrine within the context of a prayer to the Blessed Virgin:

"O Mary, Mother of Mercy and Seat of Wisdom! Enlighten the minds enfolded in the darkness of ignorance and sin, that they may clearly recognize the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman Church to be the only true Church of Jesus Christ, outside which neither sanctity nor salvation can be found."[16]

        From these sources, and from countless other magisterial teachings, it is clear that the only religion positively willed by God, the only religion in which "sanctity and salvation can be found" is the Holy Catholic Church established by Christ.

        Sacred Scripture likewise teaches infallibly that false religions are not pleasing to God, and the greatest charity we can show "the others" is to work and pray for their conversion to the one true Church of Christ. Our Lord commanded His disciples, "Go forth and teach", not "Go forth and dialogue". He said, "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost." (Matt: 28:19). "He who believes and is baptized shall be saved, but he who does not believe shall be condemned.(Mark 15:16).

        The "belief" that Our Lord spoke of does not mean a vague belief in any religion, but express belief in Him and all that He taught. This is why Saint John, the Apostle of Love, said, "Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son." (1 John 1:22) Thus, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, any religion that rejects Christ, according to Scripture, is an Antichrist religion. Regarding heretical religions, for example, "Orthodoxy" and Protestantism, Saint Paul tells us that false creeds are the "doctrines of devils" (1 Tim. 4:1).

        Contrary to Father Dupuis’ notions, Antichrist religions and false creeds of heretics which are "doctrines of devils," cannot possibly be willed by God. Nor can their members be considered as being part of the "Reign of God".

        Thus, there can not be a new "ecumenical unity" which seeks to unite Catholics with members of false religions in a heretical notion of the "Reign of God". Pope Pius XI rightly taught in his 1928 encyclical against ecumenism, Mortaliam Animos: "Unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one faith of Christians." Likewise, Pope Pius XII taught in his 1949 Instruction on the Ecumenical Movement that "True reunion can only come about by the return of dissidents to the one true Church of Christ (the Catholic Church)."[17]

        But for now, the interfaith heresy rules the hour, and is poised to claim the Shrine at Fatima as its next victim.

Msgr. Guerra, the Fatima Shrine Rector, is seated on the left. Standing next to him is the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, D. Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva.

Fatima: An Interfaith Shrine?

        At the time, I saw no reports of this "Future of God" Congress in the secular and religious press. Two weeks later, however, the November 1 on-line edition of the Lisbon-based Portugal News published in English an article entitled "Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine". The article said, "Delegates attending the Vatican and United Nations inspired annual interfaith congress ‘The Future of God’, held during October in Fatima, heard how the Shrine is to be developed into a center where all the religions of the world will gather to pay homage to their various gods."

        The report quoted the Shrine’s rector, Monsignor Guerra, saying at the Congress that Fatima "will change for the better". Portugal News further quoted Msgr. Guerra: "The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and His mother at this holy Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. The interreligious dialogue in Portugal, and in the Catholic Church, is still in an embryonic phase, but the Shrine of Fatima is not indifferent to this fact and is already open to being a universalistic place of vocation."

        "Monsignor Guerra" said Portugal News, "pointed out that the very fact that Fatima is the name of a Muslim and Mohammed's daughter, is indicative that the Shrine must be open to the co-existence of various faiths and beliefs. According to the Monsignor: ‘Therefore we must assume that it was the will of the Blessed Virgin Mary that this comes about this way.’ Traditional Catholics opposed to the Congress were described by the Monsignor as ‘old fashioned, narrow minded, fanatic extremists and provocateurs’."[18]

        Now, I quote Portugal News on this point because I did not hear Monsignor Guerra make these statements at the Congress. But then again, I might have missed it. Monsignor Guerra spoke in Portuguese, and as I’ve already noted, the simultaneous translation into English was poorly done. Nonetheless, the idea of Fatima becoming an "interfaith" Shrine is consistent with everything I heard throughout that weekend, especially on Sunday when the members of various religions gave their testimony of the importance of "Sanctuaries" in their religious traditions.

        Representatives for this Sunday session included Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Hindu, Muslim, as well as a Buddhist who invited us to visit the Zenkoji Buddhist Shrine in Japan, and even supplied each of us with a colorful pamphlet of Zenkoji.

        But the testimony of the Catholic proved the most troublesome, and was, perhaps, a portent of what we might soon see at Fatima.

        Father Arul Irudayam, Rector of the Marian Shrine Basilica in Vailankanni, India, initially spoke beautifully about the history of this Shrine where our Lady appeared. The Shrine receives millions of pilgrims a year, including many Hindus.

        Father Irudayam then rejoiced that, as a further development of interreligious practice, the Hindus now perform their religious rituals in the church.

        Of course, the delegates were thrilled to hear that a Catholic church was used for pagan worship, but I was horrified. Sacred Scripture teaches clearly that "the gods of the Gentiles are devils". (Psalm 95:5). And the truth that the gods of Hinduism are devils was confirmed by one of the greatest missionaries of all time, Saint Francis Xavier.

A Buddhist gave everyone present at the Congress a pamphlet inviting us to visit the Buddhist Shrine of Zenkoji.

        While serving his missions, Saint Francis Xavier found particular delight in his small pupils. He was impressed that these young ones showed a great attachment to their faith, and a great zeal to learn the prayers and to teach them to others. The young pupils "also had a great abhorrence for the idolatrous practices of the pagans", in other words, for the practices of Hinduism. The pupils frequently "reproached their father and mother if they engaged in pagan ceremonies and came to tell the priest about it."

        When Saint Francis Xavier heard that "outside the village someone was practicing idolatry, he gathered together all the boys, and this was something which he did later also in the other villages that he visited, and went with them to the spot where the idols had been erected. His pupils smashed the clay figures of the demons to dust and spit and stamped upon them." Saint Francis Xavier’s biographer explains that these children "thus gave more insults to the devil than their parents had shown honor to him."[19]

        Even though this event would send ecumenical clergymen shrieking into the snowbanks, it is clear that Saint Francis Xavier recognized rightly that "the gods of the Gentiles are devils", that is, the "gods" of Hinduism. Now, however, these "devils" are worshiped in the Vailankanni Shrine of Our Lady in India. The Fatima Shrine Rector, as did all the Conference delegates, applauded the speech wherein the Indian priest related the practice of Hinduism in the Catholic Sanctuary.

        It is fair to conclude that if Catholics do not organize and protest, it is only a matter of time before this blasphemy takes place at Fatima, especially since plans are underway for a new, modern Fatima Shrine to be built.

        The Portugal News reported "The Shrine of Fatima is about to undergo a complete reconstruction with a new stadium-like basilica being erected close to the existing one built in 1921."[20] About a year ago, I saw a picture of the proposed building. It is a hideous modern monstrosity that looks like a futuristic airplane hangar.

        In the face of the proposed desecration of Our Lady’s apparition site at Fatima, a worldwide protest must be mounted. Absolutely no money should be donated to the Fatima Shrine in Portugal until the present Rector is removed and the invasion of the ecumenical religion at Fatima ceases. The new Shrine, if completed, will display ugliness from the outside, reflected in the hideous modern architecture, and ugliness on the inside, not only in the futuristic interior, but also in the pagan practices that might be allowed to take place in the very area sanctified by Our Lady’s appearances; the very area where the Miracle of the Sun took place, and where countless pilgrims were cured and converted.

Saturday afternoon at the Congress.

Chastisement

        The new ecumenical religion propounded at Fatima threatens the salvation of countless souls, as it tells non-Catholics to remain in the darkness of their false religions. It also threatens to bring with it a great chastisement.

        In the early 20^th Century, the eminent European churchman Cardinal Mercier, citing the consistent teaching of the Popes, stated the First World War was actually a punishment for the crime of nations placing the one True Religion on the same level as false creeds (as does the ecumenical religion promoted at Fatima Congress). Cardinal Mercier said:

"In the name of the Gospel, and in the light of the Encyclicals of the last four Popes, Gregory XVI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and Pius X, I do not hesitate to affirm that this indifference to religions which puts on the same level the religion of divine origin and the religions invented by men in order to include them in the same scepticism is the blasphemy which calls down chastisement on society far more than the sins of individuals and families."[21]

        What would Cardinal Mercier, and the Popes cited by him, say of this new attempt to bring about a "peace and harmony of religions", wherein Catholic Churchmen place the one true religion as an "equal partner" with false religions and pagan creeds? How will God react to this "blasphemy which calls down chastisement on society"? What sort of punishment will Heaven unleash when the land of Fatima, sanctified by Our Lady’s presence, and the Shrine that is consecrated to Her, is allowed by Catholic leaders to be desecrated with the worship of false gods? In the face of this, Catholics must not be complacent.

        Most disturbing of all, the new ecumenical religion, trumpeted at this Fatima Congress, is actually the religion of Freemasonry. The French Freemason Yves Marsaudon wrote approvingly:

"One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry ... In our times, our brother Franklin Roosevelt claimed for all of them the possibility of ‘adoring God, following their principles and their convictions.’ This is tolerance, and it is also ecumenism. We traditional Freemasons allow ourselves to paraphrase and transpose this saying of a celebrated statesman, adapting it to circumstances: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Israelites, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, freethinkers, free-believers, to us, these are only first names; Freemasonry is the name of our family."[22]

        This Freemasonic religion is now promoted in Fatima. I heard it coming from the mouth of the soft-spoken Father Jacques Dupuis. Yet Dupuis’ words were a sugar-coated masonic doctrine from the underworld. It was Pope Pius VIII who rightly said of Freemasons, "their god is the devil".[23]

        Yet it should not surprise us that consecrated souls have come under the power of the devil. Sister Lucy predicted it over 40 years ago.

The Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon, Jose da Cruz Policarpo, being interviewed by the Press.

Lucy’s Warning

        In her 1957 interview with Father Fuentes, Sister Lucy made the prophetic warning:

"Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them."

        Sister Lucy continues,

"That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell ... The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated souls. He tries to corrupt them in order to lull to sleep the souls of laypeople and thereby lead them to final impenitence..."[24]

        Sister Lucy’s prophetic words unfold before our eyes at the pan-religious Fatima Congress. Here we see the devil "overcome souls" who are consecrated to God. We see priests, religious, bishops, who have "fallen away from their beautiful vocation" of teaching the truths of the Catholic Faith, and who "drag numerous souls to hell" by their perverse, ecumenical teaching.

        The Cardinal of Lisbon, the Bishop of Fatima, and the Shrine Rector all swore the Oath Against Modernism upon their ordination.[25] An Oath before God is a sacred act, and to betray such an Oath is a mortal sin against the Second Commandment, "Thou Shalt Not Take the Name of the Lord Thy God in Vain." Yet those at the Fatima Congress betrayed this Oath by promoting a new modernist religion that claims that the Catholic truths of yesterday must not be the Catholic "truths" of today. As Msgr. Fenton pointed out decades ago, "The man who taught or in any way aided in the dissemination or the protection of Modernist teaching" after taking the Oath Against Modernism, "would mark himself, not only as a sinner against the Catholic Faith, but also as a common perjurer".[26]

        We can conclude that Father Jacques Dupuis, Cardinal Jose da Cruz Policarpo of Lisbon, Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva of Fatima-Leiria, and Fatima Shrine Rector Monsignor Guerra have promoted Modernism and are therefore sinners against the Catholic Faith and also common perjurers. It is a crime against God and justice that these men should hold authority in the land of Portugal where Our Blessed Mother appeared.

        In the mid 1990's, on a Mexican radio station, the Rector of the Shrine of Guadalupe denied the truth that Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared at Tepayac Hill. The people of Mexico were outraged and protested against the audacity. Within a year, the Shrine Rector was gone.[27] The same must be done at Fatima.

        Catholics around the world must unite and protest the outrage that was allowed, and will continue, to be perpetuated against the Catholic Faith and the Mother of God.

        We must also unite in prayers of reparation for the blasphemies spoken against the one true Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, whose Mother came to Fatima with a message for mankind, a Mother now betrayed by Churchmen in high place, and most especially, by members of the present hierarchy of Portugal.

The Paul VI Pastoral Center, adjacent to the Fatima Shrine, where the pan-religious Congress was held.

Notes:

1. Pope Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, 1864, Condemned Proposition #18. Popes Against Modern Errors: 16 Papal Documents, (Rockford: Tan, 1999), p. 30.

2. In 1944, the eminent theologian Father Francis Connell, basing himself on the consistent teaching of the Popes, reminded Catholics that they have a duty of charity to tell the non-Catholic that he is in great danger of losing his soul if he remains in his false religion. He said, "Far from minimizing the exclusiveness of the Catholic religion, our people should be instructed unhesitatingly, whenever the occasion offers, and to let non-Catholics know that we consider them as deprived of the ordinary means of salvation, however excellent their intentions." Quoted from Father Francis Connell, C.Ss.R., "Communication with Non-Catholics in Sacred Rites, American Ecclesiastical Review, Sept., 1944.

3. Our Lady of Fatima asked specifically for the Five First Saturdays of reparation for the blasphemies against Her Immaculate Heart that are the fruit of these false religions. See "A World View Based On Fatima", The Fatima Crusader, Issue 64, Summer, 2000. On-line at http://www.fatima.org/library/cr64pg15.html

4. These were published in Catholic Family News.

5. Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence, Feb. 4, 1442.

6. See The Source of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott (first printed in 1960, reprinted by Tan Books, Rockford, IL), p. 4-6.

7. Cited from Hail Mary, Full of Grace, Still River, MA, 1957, p. 107. We could also quote Saint Francis of Assisi, who stated firmly, "All who have not believed that Jesus Christ was really the Son of God are doomed.  Also all who see the Sacrament of the Body of Christ and do not believe it is really the most holy Body and Blood of the Lord ... these also are doomed!". Quoted from Admonitio prima de Corpore Christi (Quaracchi edition, p. 4), cited from Johannes Jorgensen, St. Francis of Assisi, (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., 1912), p. 55.

8. Instructions on the Commandments and Sacraments. It should also be noted that Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, the former editor of The American Ecclesiastical Review, and one of most eminent theologians of the 20^th Century, warned that the doctrine "outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation" is one of the key dogmas denied in our time. In 1958, four years before Vatican II, Msgr. Fenton wrote, "In every age of the Church there has been one portion of Christian doctrine which men have been especially tempted to misconstrue or to deny. In our own times, it is the part of Catholic truth which was brought out with a special force and clarity by St. Peter in his first missionary sermon in Jerusalem. It is somewhat unfashionable today to insist, as St. Peter did, that those who are outside the true Church of Christ stand in need of being saved by leaving their own positions and entering the ecclesia. Nevertheless, this remains a part of God’s own revealed message." (See Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The Catholic Church and Salvation, Newman Press, 1958, p. 145.)

9. Documentation Information Catholique Internationale (DICI), November 3, 2003.

10. See "It Doesn’t Add Up", John Vennari, especially the final heading, "Don’t Rain on My Charade", The Fatima Crusader, Issue #70, Spring 2002. On-line at http://www.fatima.org/library/cr70pg12.htm

11. Session V on Original Sin. See Denzinger #787.

12. See text from the Council of Florence quoted earlier.

13. "The Holy Spirit was not promised to the successor of Peter that by the revelation of the Holy Spirit they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard sacredly the revelation transmitted through the Apostles and the deposit of Faith, and might faithfully set it forth." Vatican I, Session III, Chap. IV, Dei Filius. The eminent theologian Msgr. Fenton employs this text to explain that "Catholic dogma is immutable ... the same identical truths are always presented to the people as having been revealed by God. Their meaning never changes.", We Stand With Christ, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, (Bruce, 1942) p. 2.

14. Quoted from The Catholic Dogma by Father Michael Muller (Benzinger Brothers, 1888), p. xi. Emphasis added.

15. Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, Immortale Dei, cited from The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism by Father Denis Fahey (Regina Publications, Dublin, 1943), pp. 7-8.

16. The Raccolta, Benzinger Brothers, Boston, 1957, No. 626 (Emphasis added).

17. Instructio (The Instruction from the Holy Office on the Ecumenical Movement, Dec. 20, 1949). Entire English translation published in The Tablet (London), March 4, 1950.

18. Portugal News, On-line edition, November 1, 2003.

19. Francis Xavier, His Life and Times, Volume II, India, 1541-1545, George Schurhammer, S.J. (English translation copyrighted 1963. Published by the Jesuit Historical Institute, Rome, 1977), p. 310.

20. This, perhaps, may be a typographical error in Portugal News. The small Capelinha was built in 1921. The present Fatima Shrine Basilica was built in 1951.

21. Cardinal Mercier’s Pastoral Letter, 1918, The Lesson of Events. Cited from The Kingship of Christ and Organized Naturalism by Father Denis Fahey (Dublin: Regina Publications, 1943), p. 36.

22. Yves Marsaudon, Oecumènisme vu par un Maçon de Tradition (pp. 119-120). English translation cited from Peter Lovest Thou Me? (Instauratio Press, 1988), p. 170. Except for the first line "One can say ..." which was translated into English by S.M. Rini.

23. Pope Pius VIII, quoted from Papacy and Freemasonry by Msgr. Jouin.

24. Fatima in Twilight, Mark Fellows, (Niagara Falls: Marmion, 2003), p. 145.

25. All priests had to take this Oath against Modernism until, tragically, it was abolished by Paul VI in 1967. It appears that all the priests I mentioned here were ordained before 1967. But even if a priest does not swear an Oath Against Modernism, he is still prohibited from promoting Modernism, or any heresy. It is still against the Catholic Faith to do so.

26. "Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism," Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1960, pp. 259-260.

27. See Fatima Priest,Francis Alban, (Pound Ridge: Good Counsel Publications, 1997), Chapter 14, p. 160 (2nd edition).

[Aquinasfan]

Here is what the new Fatima Basilica will look like.

Oh no...

[Aquinasfan]

What is a Traditional Freemason?

Naturalism and in Europe particularly anti-Catholicism. Membership still constitutes grounds for excommunication.

[raph]

Thank you for the clarification regarding the label "Traditional Freemason. It's my understanding that naturalism is also a heresy; because Masonry states that man is naturally good and all man needs is education and information...he does not need the grace of God which comes through prayer and sacraments. I wonder if John Vennari heard any mention of prayer and the sacraments at that pan-religious Fatima conference.

[raph]

St. Chuch writes that John Vennari's "Account From One Who Was There" should be considered wholly unreliable. Perhaps, St. Chuck will kindly write his account of what he witnessed while he attended this three-day event in Portugal. Therefor, St. Chuck can bring his version of a "fair and balanced" report to this thread.

[raph]

Father Dupuis is still a priest; because he faithfully promotes the Ratzinger, Sodano, Bertone, Hoyos anti-Catholic agenda; while Father Gruner is threatened with suspension for faithfully promoting Our Lady's messages at the very site where Father Dupuis states that defined Catholic doctrine must be rejected. God help us!

[eastsider]

Looks like a crop circle ...

[Askel5]

You find Ratzinger belongs among that crowd?

[Grigeo]

You find Ratzinger belongs among that crowd?

RATZINGER AGAINST RATZINGER
The apostolic letter "Ad tuendam fidem" and Cardinal Ratzinger
by a theologian

Pope John Paul II’s Apostolic Letter intended to "defend the faith", was accompanied by a "Doctrinal Note illustrating the conclusive formula of the Professio fidei", signed by Cardinal Ratzinger and by Mgr Bertone, Prefect and Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith respectively.

With regard to Cardinal Ratzinger, this "Doctrinal Note" raises a certain problem. It is difficult to reconcile the moral and legal demands of the Apostolic Letter with certain of Cardinal Ratzinger’s teachings, which are highly questionable and beyond the pale of the Church’s authentic doctrine!…

These teachings of the Cardinal are expounded in two volumes, each containing numerous errors as well as several heresies. They are the following volumes, published in 1985: The Christian Faith yesterday and today (CFYT) and The Principles of Catholic Theology (PCT). Since these two works have been made public and are accessible throughout the whole Catholic Church, any member of the faithful can read them and has the right, if not the duty, to declare them outside the bounds of the Church’s doctrinal orthodoxy!…

It is absolutely impossible to reconcile several of the teachings contained in these two volumes with the solemn commitment entailed by the Profession of faith, which has to be pronounced before assuming any clerical office, according to the provisions established by canon 833 for the different situations that can arise.

CARDINAL RATZINGER AND THE PROBLEM OF THE FAITH

The Profession of faith makes the person taking office say: «With a firm faith, I believe and profess each and every one of the truths contained in the Symbol of the Faith.» Further on, the Profession of faith adds: «With a firm faith, I also believe all the truths […] which the Church sets forth to be believed as divinely revealed […] I also firmly accept and hold each and every one of the truths definitively proposed by the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals […]»

And the Oath of fidelity enjoins the following to be said: «In the fulfilment of the office entrusted to me in the name of the Church, I shall conserve the deposit of faith in its integrity. I shall transmit and explain it faithfully. I shall guard against all doctrines to the contrary.»

Furthermore, the doctrine of the Church states that the immediate object of the supernatural virtue of faith is the Word of God and that it is grounded on the authority of God. This virtue unites us personally to God, the Supreme Truth , and helps us to appreciate everything according to the divine light. Nevertheless, what Cardinal Ratzinger teaches on the faith is far from being in conformity with the authentic doctrine of the Church!…

In fact, on the subject of the faith, the Cardinal has written things that are "strange", to say the least!… Notably, he claims that «the faith, by its nature, is the institution of a communication with all the brothers of Jesus in the holy Church, where alone it can be received». He adds that it is impossible to «possess the faith independently of others» (PCT, p. 35). He goes even further in saying that «a faith that is not ecclesial does not exist» (PCT, p. 42). With ideas like that, how could Cardinal Ratzinger renew his Profession of faith and his Oath of fidelity?…

PONTIFICAL PRIMACY AND INFALLIBILITY

In his "Doctrinal Note" on the Apostolic Letter "Ad tuendam fidem", Cardinal Ratzinger draws attention, amongst the other articles of the Creed , to «the doctrine on the primacy and on the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff» (n. 11). Now, in his work entitled The Principles of Catholic Theology, the Cardinal maintains that the Church’s Magisterium receives no special assistance from the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit acts through the community (p. 50). And he claims that the dogma of papal infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council will have to be revised. In fact, he states that «it is now much more correctly said that the work of the Magisterium is accomplished against the backdrop of the faith and through the prayer of the Church!» (PCT, p. 263). And so, the Magisterium becomes no more than the spokesman for the Church’s collective conscience!… (PCT, p. 109)

On the subject of pontifical primacy, the Cardinal again makes statements that are daring to say the least: «Rome should not demand of the East, on the subject of papal primacy, he writes, more than what was formulated and lived during the first millennium». And he indicates the concessions which he thinks both East and West should mutually concede, to conclude as follows: «Of course, such a mutual acceptance and recognition of a common catholicity that was never lost, is no easy affair. It is act of surpassing oneself, of self-renunciation, but precisely because of that, it is also an act of self-discovery»! (PCT, p. 221-222)

It would amount, therefore, to the Catholic Church "surpassing herself", "renouncing herself" in order to "rediscover herself"! But through surpassing and renouncing herself perhaps the Catholic Church will rediscover unity "in a catholicity that was never lost" !… With such ideas on the infallibility and primacy of the Roman Pontiff, one again wonders how the Cardinal can renew his Profession of faith and his Oath of fidelity…

ORIGINAL SIN

Dealing with the articles of faith in the Creed, Cardinal Ratzinger also picks out «the doctrine on the existence of original sin» (Doctrinal Note, n. 11). But, for him «the doctrine of original sin says nothing other than this: the history of man is the history of his alienation» (PCT, p. 177). But on this subject, he ventures into formal heresy: «Original sin, he writes, cannot be conceived as the product of generation» (PCT, p. 96). He makes a further absurd statement: «The essence (!…) of original sin consists in being divided up into individualities» (PCT, p. 51).

The dogmatic definitions of the Councils concerning original sin can be summed up as follows: through this sin, Adam lost both supernatural and preternatural gifts. This sin is transmitted to all his descendants and, contrary to what Cardinal Ratzinger says, it is transmitted to Adam’s descendants through generation, as defined by the Council of Trent: «If anyone states that Adam’s sin, which is unique in its origin and which, transmitted to all through hereditary propagation and not through imitation, is proper to each person, […] let him be anathema.» (canons on original sin, n. 3)

THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

Among the articles of the Creed, the Cardinal also mentions «the doctrine of Christ’s institution of the sacraments and their efficacy in conferring grace» (Doctrinal Note, n. 11). And the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol, inserted at the beginning of the Profession of faith, acknowledges «one single baptism for the forgiveness of sins».

Now, on the subject of baptism, Cardinal Ratzinger has written a long chapter in his volume The Principles of Catholic Theology (p. 27-43). He explains that baptism is "the welcome by the community", which is purchased by "renunciation of the self" and of the "powers of egoism". And for him, the water is purely symbolic, whereas, according to Catholic doctrine, the water is the matter of the sacrament. As for the profession of faith, «it is indeed, says he, by its very nature, the institution of a communication with all the brothers of Jesus in the Holy Church» (p. 35). The profession of faith is therefore a symbolic communication aid and not an act of cognition. It is hard to believe, when reading such nonsense, that their author is charged with watching over doctrinal orthodoxy throughout the whole Church!…

According to the conciliar definitions, baptism is a true sacrament, administered by an ablution in natural water, whilst invoking the Most Holy Trinity. Its effect is the remission of original sin, of all personal sins and of all their penalties. It produces sanctifying grace in the soul; it incorporates the one baptised into the Mystical Body of Christ, the Church, and it imprints an indelible character on him.

THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS

The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol states that Christ «rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures». The explanation provided by Cardinal Ratzinger on the "resurrection" of Jesus is surprising, to say the least!…

In fact, according to him, Eros is supposedly stronger than death. «The confession of faith in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, he writes, is for Christians an expression of their certitude that this phrase is true, even though it might seem to be no more than a beautiful dream: "Love is stronger than death" (Sg 8.6). In the Old Testament, this affirmation figures in a hymn to the power of Eros.» (CFYT, p. 213) It would be more truthful to maintain that the Song of Songs, to which he alludes, presents us with a symbol of God’s sublime love for redeemed man and for the Church, spouse of His divine Son!….

THE BODILY ASCENSION OF JESUS

The Nicene-Constantinople Symbol states that Christ «ascended into Heaven, [that] He is seated at the right hand of the Father». Faith in the bodily Ascension of the risen Jesus in the presence of His disciples is a fundamental element of the Catholic faith.

Now, this is how Cardinal Ratzinger explains it: «To speak of an Ascension into heaven or of a descent into hell is a reflection, in the eyes of our generation awakened by Bultmann’s criticism, of this three tiered image which we call mythical and consider to be definitely outdated. […] It has certainly provided the images which the faith has used to present these mysteries.» (CFYT, p. 221) So, the Ascension is reduced to an "image", with no meaning for our times; it would best be forgotten by the faithful and suppressed from the Church’s liturgy. Thus the event of the Ascension supposedly has no physical, objective, historical reality!…

THE DESCENT INTO HELL

The Apostles’ Symbol states that, after His death, Christ «descended into hell». The "descent of Jesus into hell" after His death is explained by Cardinal Ratzinger thus: «This article of the faith of the descent into hell states that Christ has crossed the threshold of our ultimate solitude, that he has entered, through his Passion, into the abyss of our dereliction. There where no word could ever more reach us, he is to be found. And so hell is overcome, or more exactly death, which was hell before, no longer is. The two are no longer identical, because in the midst of death there is life, because love dwells in the midst of death. Henceforth hell is simply the act of withdrawing into oneself.» (CFYT, p. 213) How can one recognise the authentic doctrine of the Church in these hazy words?…

THE HOLINESS OF THE CHURCH

The Nicene Constantinople Symbol states that the Church is «one, holy, catholic and apostolic». On the subject of the Church’s holiness, Cardinal Ratzinger has some quite peculiar insights. «The centuries of the Church’s history, he writes, are so full of human failings […] that we can well conceive William of Auvergne, Bishop of Paris (13th century), having spoken these terrible words: "at the sight of the Church’s depravity, every man should freeze with horror. It is no longer a spouse, but a frightening monster, deformed and savage." » (CFYT, p. 244) In a footnote at the bottom of the page, the Cardinal refers to an article by H. Urs von Balthasar, entitled Casta meretrix, in English: "Chaste whore"!… Is not that to disparage the Church in a way that is wholly disrespectful?…

No doubt, the Church comprises many sinners and, even among the just, there are shady corners to be found, at different degrees, which have to be dispelled by the light of Christ. And so, the just and the sinners are in the Church only through what is holy in them, in their being, in their heart, in their behaviour. Nevertheless, the Church remains holy, for the principle of her holiness is the Most Holy Trinity, Christ and the Holy Spirit working within her. The Church is holy in her doctrine, in her faith, her sacraments, in the graces and charisms of the Holy Spirit, in her saints, martyrs, confessors and virgins, which she proposes to the faithful as models. The divine Founder of the Church willed to make holiness a distinctive note of the legitimate Church. And these are the words contained in the Apostles’ Creed on this subject: «I believe in the holy Catholic Church».

THE REVISION OF DOGMAS

The Profession of faith begins with the Nicene-Constantinople Symbol, followed by three paragraphs «intended to describe the truths of the Catholic faith» (Apostolic Letter, n. 2). In the first paragraph, as the "Doctrinal Note" indicates, «the intention is to affirm all the doctrines of the divine and Catholic faith proposed by the Church as divinely and formally revealed and, as such, irreformable.» (n. 5)

Nevertheless, Cardinal Ratzinger quite simply denies the infallible character of dogmas defined by the Councils that have followed the Eastern Schism!… In fact, he maintains that «a purely Western Council could never formulate a text […] having a Catholic ecclesial character since the Eastern Schism» (PCT, p. 137). The Council of Trent is very much devalued, because it has a "regional" character (p. 138) and is "polemical" into the bargain (p. 278). According to him, the effects of this Council are apparently so negative that «the revision of such texts is indispensable» (p. 138).

Now, it is absolutely false and heretical to maintain that dogmas defined by the Councils can be modified. In fact, in its canons on the Catholic faith, the First Vatican Council makes the following definition: «If anyone says that dogmas proposed by the Catholic Church may, depending on scientific progress, sometimes be seen to have a different meaning from that always understood by the Church, let him be anathema.» (chapter 4, n. 3)

Neither the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, nor the Pope, nor even another Council can contradict an already defined dogma of the faith, because it is marked as irreformable. According to Canon Law, which applies to all members of the Church, whoever they may be, to contradict a dogma of the faith is a heresy entailing an excommunication latæ sententiæ (can. 1364, § 1)

CONCLUSION

Ought we not to conclude, therefore, that according to the writings of Cardinal Ratzinger, he should be classed among the heretics, who are, according to Canon Law, excommunicated latæ sententiæ?… Furthermore, as theology teaches us, a heretic has lost the virtue of faith. An heretical theologian, therefore, can no longer be, nor call himself, a "Catholic" theologian!…

The crime of heretics is to corrupt the faith of the faithful, to poison minds. This crime is far more grave than that of poisoning bodies!… In his Summa Theologica, Saint Thomas Aquinas wrote an article entitled: Should heretics be tolerated? In answer to this question, he wrote, quoting Saint Jerome in particular, «Rotten flesh must be cut away and the scabby sheep hounded out of the sheepfold, for fear that the whole household, the whole mass, the whole body and the whole flock suffer, become corrupt, rot and perish. Arius of Alexandria was a spark, but because he was not immediately snuffed out, his flame devastated the whole globe.» (2-2, q.11, a.3)

Cardinal Ratzinger, therefore, does not merit the confidence placed in him!… On the contrary, should he not be classed among those who are «disguised as sheep, but are ravenous wolves within»? (Mt 7.15) The members of the Roman Curia should insist that the Pope "liberate" the Church as soon as possible from this heretical functionary who, despite appearances to the contrary, is incompetent for the function he exercises!… The plainest proof of this incompetence is the letter he addressed to all the bishops of the entire world, dated 29 September 1985, almost totally forbidding the practice of exorcism within the Church!… No directive of the Church has ever guaranteed the demons a greater protection and a greater freedom of action!…

2 August 1998
A theologian

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

Raph brought my attention to a new book "The Devil's Final Battle". It was endorsed by the late, well regarded Father Fiore. The book names 4 major players in the Vatican who are pushing a modernist agenda: Sodano, Ratzinger, Bertone, and another I can't recall.

I don't have the book yet but I plan to buy it. I always thought Ratzinger was a good guy. This is a big surprise.

[Askel5]

Thanks ... I'll give that a close read.

[St.Chuck]

Perhaps, St. Chuck will kindly write his account of what he witnessed while he attended this three-day event in Portugal.

Were I to have attended this event and reported on it, I'd have left out my personal interpretation of tradition and doctrine that comprise three quarters of Mr. Vennari's account. One would think that readers of Fatima.Org wouldn't need to be coached as they are apprised of the events of the gathering, but apparently Mr. Vennari feels they need to be, lest they not share his indignation. Mr. Vennari is a self-appointed orthodoxy cop, and having read other "accounts" of his, I can only see him as being the most biased of writers. His writing for Fatima.org places him in the company of some pretty bizarre conspiracy theorists and the most prominent rad-trad polemicists. Any objectivity on his part, is colored by his now familiar agenda to breed contempt for Holy Mother Church. Tsk, tsk.

[St.Chuck]

This is a very interesting post. I think it worth our while to look into the anonomous theologian's critique and the conclusions he draws. I'd like to address at least one item, which is Original Sin

Here is the decree in Trent that AT (anonomous theologian)says Card. Ratzinger contradicts:

If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one, and by propagation, not by imitation, transfused into all, which is in each one as something that is his own, is taken away either by the forces of human nature or by a remedy other than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ,[9] who has reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, sanctification and redemption;[10] or if he denies that that merit of Jesus Christ is applied both to adults and to infants by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the Church, let him be anathema; for there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved.[11] Whence that declaration: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sins of the world;[12] and that other: As many of you as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

But AT's edited version of Trent can be misleading.

If anyone states that Adam’s sin, which is unique in its origin and which, transmitted to all through hereditary propagation and not through imitation, is proper to each person, […] let him be anathema.

By omitting so much of the phrase, AT gives the false impression that denying hereditary propagation one is to become anathema, but in reality the anathema becomes warranted when one affirms a means other than Christ to remove the stain of original sin.

Secondly, I do not have the books that AT quotes from, but the Ratzinger I do possess writes and speaks in more than sound bites that could be easily taken out of context. His topics are best understood in paragraphs,nay, pages. From "The Ratzinger Report" (p. 81), when asked about, " Adam, Eve, Eden, the apple, the serpent......What should we think of them?

The biblical narrative of the origins does not relate events inn the sense of modern historigraphy, but rather, it speaks through images. It is a narrative that reveals and hides at the same time. But the underpinning elements are reasonable, and the reality of the dogma must be safeguarded.The Christian would be remiss toward his brethren if he did not proclaim the Christ who first and foremost brings redemption from sin;(aside:here he obeys to the letter exactly what the reference from Trent speaks to) if he did not proclaim the reality of the alienation (the 'Fall') and, at the same time, the reality of the grace that redeems us, that liberates us; if he did not proclaim that, in order to effect a restoration of our original nature, a help from outside is necessary; if he did not proclaim that the insistence upon self-realization, upon self-salvation does not lead to redemption but to destruction; finally, if he did not proclaim that, in order to be saved, it is necessary to abandon oneself to Love."

Interesting huh? I'm reminded of Frank Sheed's assertion that the study of theology can really develop one's sense of awe in God and thereby enhance one's faith.

Anyway, the Church teaches that Adam wasn't necessarily a real person (CCC 390) so if AT has a problem with Ratzinger saying that "Original sin cannot be perceived as being the product of generation" his problem is with the Catechism and scripture. For in Romans: 5, when Paul draws the parallel between Adam and Christ, it is inconsistent. Christ's redemption is not transmitted through generation. So Adam's sin would not either.

This sin is transmitted to all his descendants and, contrary to what Cardinal Ratzinger says, it is transmitted to Adam’s descendants through generation, as defined by Trent

So is Trent wrong?

I don't think so. The translation I came up with does not use "hereditary propagation" as AT's does. I think that propagation is meant to convey it's universal inherent existence, "transfused into all".

What are your thoughts, besides your thinking I'm teetering toward incoherence?

Bottom line, I think Cardinal Ratzinger's thoughts deserve to be scrutinized, before TA's assertions are given any creedence.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It used to be a select few Protestants around here that would protest that you can only "blaspheme" against God. Nice to see the neo-Catholics filling in for them.

Disrespect for Mary is blasphemy against God who created her and sanctified her.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It was endorsed by the late, well regarded Father Fiore.

As good a priest as Fr. Fiore was, he was suckered by Malachi Martin like so many others. Malachi Martin has been exposed many times here for the fraud he was - agent of American Jewish Congress, serial adulterer, and modernist Biblical exegete.

[raph]

It's very easy to say what you would have done had you attended the conference; but you didn't...so shut up!!! Instead of being so critical; put your time to writing an article on whatever subject iritates you.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Here is the decree in Trent that AT (anonomous theologian)says Card. Ratzinger contradicts

On Original sin, it is amusing that the actual heretic is Anonymous Theologian.

But on this subject, he ventures into formal heresy: «Original sin, he writes, cannot be conceived as the product of generation» (PCT, p. 96).

But original sin is not "the product of generation"! Trent notes: "If anyone asserts that this sin of Adam, which in its origin is one". Original sin is as Trent notes: "transfused into all" "by propagation". Something that is transfused by an act cannot be said to be the product of the act, since to produce something is to create it, but original sin is in essence "a nothing", since it is the absence of grace in the soul, and the absence of the government of reason in the concupiscible passions. The transfusion of original sin is the seminal reproduction of a fallen human nature (the matter and habit of original sin) and the infusion of a soul by God without grace (the form and essence of original sin). The implication of saying it is produced by generation implies that the soul does not come from God, but from the fallen humanity, since the disorder of the passions stems primarily from the absence of grace.

Anyway, the Church teaches that Adam wasn't necessarily a real person (CCC 390)

That's not right Chuck. The Catechism says: "390 The account of the fall in Genesis 3 uses figurative language, but affirms a primeval event, a deed that took place at the beginning of the history of man. Revelation gives us the certainty of faith that the whole of human history is marked by the original fault freely committed by our first parents."

Figurative language refers to "the tree" and "the fruit" and the like. One needn't necessarily believe Eve ate an apple and sinned thereby.

Elsewhere it reads: "360 Because of its common origin the human race forms a unity, for 'from one ancestor [God] made all nations to inhabit the whole earth'"

This one ancestor is Adam, and this fact is confirmed by science which notes our genetic descent from one common ancestor.

I don't think so. The translation I came up with does not use "hereditary propagation" as AT's does. I think that propagation is meant to convey it's universal inherent existence, "transfused into all".

No, fallen human nature is transfused by seminal propagation. Hence the virgin birth. All humanity was one in Adam's loins. When he corrupted himself, he corrupted us all. That's the gist of Romans 5.

[raph]

During the past five years or so, I have read several articles in both religious and non-religious mainstream publications about the Third Secret and Father Malachi Martin. In each article, it was stated that Father Martin has admitted to having read the Third Secret. If this is the case, then I can understand why it's in your best interest to attack his character. HOW DARE YOU!!!
I don't see you attacking the REAl modernists,.i.e. Schillebeeckx, Chenu, Congar, Murray, Lubac, Rahner, etc.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

During the past five years or so, I have read several articles in both religious and non-religious mainstream publications about the Third Secret and Father Malachi Martin. In each article, it was stated that Father Martin has admitted to having read the Third Secret. If this is the case, then I can understand why it's in your best interest to attack his character. HOW DARE YOU!!!

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Malachi Martin wrote under the pen name Michael Serafian. Here is an article from Look Magazine in 1966, noting the adulteries of this priest, identifying his nom de plume, and noting his work as an agent of the Jews against the Church:

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/praeternatural/how%20the%20jews%20changed%20catholic%20thinking.htm

Excerpt:

The American Jewish Committee's intellectual monthly, Commentary, had offered a most bleak report on the Council and the Jews by the pseudonymous F. E. Cartus. In a footnote, the author referred the reader to a confirming account in The Pilgrim, a 281-page book by the pseudonymous Michael Serafian. Later, in Harper's magazine, Cartus, even more dour, added to the doubts on the Jewish text. To buttress his case, he recast Pilgrim passages and cited Council accounts in Time, whose Rome correspondent had surfaced for by-line status as author of a notably good book on the Council. At the time, both Time and the New York Times were glad to have an inside tipster. Just for the journalistic fun of it, the inside man's revelations were signed "Pushkin," when slipped under some correspondents' doors.

But readers were served no rewritten Pushkin on the Council's last sessions. The cassock had come off the double agent who could never turn down work. Pushkin, it turned out, was Michael Serafian in book length, F.E. Cartus for the magazines, and a translator in the Secretariat for Christian Unity, while keeping up a warm friendship with the AJC. At the time, Pushkin-Serafian-Cartus was living in the Biblical Institute, where he had been known well since his ordination in 1954, though he will be known here as Timothy Fitzharris O'Boyle, S.J. For the journalists, the young priest's inside tips and tactical leaks checked out so well that he could not resist gilding them every now and then with a flourish of creative writing. And an imprecision or two could even be charged off to exhaustion in his case. He was known to be working on a book at a young married couple's flat. The book finally got finished, but so did half of the friendship. Father Fitzharris-O'Boyle knew it was time for a forced march before his religious superior could inquire too closely into the reasons for that crisis in camaraderie. He left Rome then, sure that he could be of no more use locally.

Apart from his taste for pseudonyms, fair ladies, reports on the nonexistent and perhaps a real jester's genius for footnotes, Fitzharris-O'Boyle was good at his job in the Secretariat, valuable to the AJC and is still thought of by many around Rome as a kind of genuine savior in the diaspora.

http://www.starharbor.com/fr_martin/books.html

Please note the above website dedicated to the defense of Malachi Martin admits he wrote "The Pilgrim" under the nom de plume "Michael Serfian", as mentioned in the "Look Magazine" article.

"'The Pilgrim' (under the pseudonym Michael Serafian). Not Available at this time"

Read about Martin's infidelities with the wife of Robert Blair Kaiser here:

http://books.guardian.co.uk/news/articles/0,6109,669500,00.html

http://www.natcath.org/NCR_Online/archives/030802/030802i.htm

The book confirms among other things that Martin gave his wife birth control pills to help carry on their adulteries, that when his wife went to his brother looking for Martin, Martin's brother noted that she was the fourth woman to come asking that question, and that Martin was in the pay of the Zionist lobby (after being laicized, Martin survived on a grant from the Guggenheim Foundation).

I don't see you attacking the REAl modernists,.i.e. Schillebeeckx, Chenu, Congar, Murray, Lubac, Rahner, etc.

How dare you put Fr. Congar in the same breath as those heretics?

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

As good a priest as Fr. Fiore was, he was suckered by Malachi Martin like so many others. Malachi Martin has been exposed many times here for the fraud he was - agent of American Jewish Congress, serial adulterer, and modernist Biblical exegete.

First off, I'd be very careful in labelling solid priests like Father Fiore "suckered". Good priests tend to have intelligence and proper discernment. Father Fiore was well aware of the corruption within the Chicago archdiocese and the Catholic Church at large. I'm certain he knew of Martin's sins yet was able to separate them from the truth he believed Martin spoke. I strongly doubt Malachi Martin was Father Fiore's only source for corruption in the Church. In fact, I'll bet a lot of money he wasn't. Remember, Father Fiore's friend Father Kunz was murdered, allegedly by Satanic priests or their counterparts. He died with more knowledge than we will know.

Second, Father Gabriel Amorth refers to Malachi Martin in his book (can't recall the page right now). Reputable priests would know of the controversy surrounding Martin. He must be speaking some truth if others are willing to cite him.

Jesus told us in Matthew 12 that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. That is, evil cannot drive out evil without destroying itself. Malachi Martin was an exorcist who drove out demons in the name of Jesus and the Church. If he was against the Church that would have been impossible. For all his sins, he spoke truthfully about the evil and corruption in the Church. Many good priests who are afraid to speak out themselves believe him.

Father Amorth also states in his book that exorcists are highly at risk for attacks from the devil and many fall into sin themselves, despite their charism.

Unsubstantiated allegations that Martin was a fraud or agent of the Jews sound more tinfoil than anything Martin said (and substantiated with documentation)

[raph]

I will research your allegations regarding Father Malachi Martin.
But in the meantime, you know full well that Father Congar has been deeply entrenched with the other heretics mentioned. While his writings were suppressed by Pope Pius II; his progressive theological opinions gained widespread influence at the Second Vatican Council. And I know you are familiar with Congar admitting that Vatican II's "Declaration on Religious Liberty" runs contrary to the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX.