A Buddhist gave everyone present at the Congress a pamphlet inviting us to visit the Buddhist Shrine of Zenkoji.
Posted on 05/19/2004 7:01:30 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
John Paul II recently gave the religious authorities of Fatima a marble fragment of the tomb of St. Peter in Rome to be used in the new Holy Trinity Basilica that has been under construction since February 1994. The rector of the sanctuary is Msgr. Luciano Guerra. The new basilica will seat 9,000 people, making it the largest covered building in Portugal and one of the biggest Catholic churches in the world. It is scheduled to open in 2007, and is projected to cost close to $50 million, to be paid for by the offerings of pilgrims (The Tablet, March 27, 2004, p. 29).
There is no doubt about it, it's the very same inter-confessional shrine that was announced some months ago and had raised so much indignation among the Catholic faithful (see articles). Recently Msgr. Luciano Guerra himself confirmed that this new church will in fact be used for inter-religious purposes (“Controversy at Shrine Hasn’t Affected Construction,” Zenit, May 13, 2004).
Therefore, after the wave of indignation that has rolled over the Catholic world about the installation of a pan-religious shrine in Fatima, we have the final decision coming from Rome. With this symbolic gesture, John Paul II publicly takes a side in the controversy and in unspoken words gives his order: “Go ahead with the pan-religious shrine! It is what I want.” He is not only encouraging the Fatima authorities, but also obviously intends to close the door on the topic, sending the message to Catholics that the issue would no longer be open to discussion.
It is indisputably a good lesson for those naïve conservatives who often say that John Paul II is not aware of what the Vatican and other high Prelates are doing in his name. No one can deny that this time he is carrying out the progressivist agenda.
Ping
From one of them:
This seems to be the dishonest procedure that Justice Anne Burke was referring to when she stated that the 13 members of the NRB had been manipulated. It’s my opinion that she is right. After another year, she and the other members of the lay panel came to realize that Frank Keating was right when he qualified part of the American Hierarchy as acting like la Cosa Nostra. Analogous ploys like the one used by Mahony last year to put out Keating are being brought into play now by a large group of Bishops, including some “holy” conservatives. It could be called la Cosa Nostra II.
Bruskewitz, Curtiss, Chaput, Rigali, and Egan....all conspirators in shutting down the National Review Board.
The NRB was a front to take the clerical abuse issue off the front pages. Now it, and its recommendations, are cast aside like yesterday's trash.
Of course, if the traditionalists were in charge, there would have been no Review Board in the first place.
Does Portugal have earthquakes? I sense one in Fatima's future.
If the "traditionalists" were in charge, Kasper, Mahoney and McCarrick would no longer be Cardinals. The majority of Amchurch bishops would no longer be bishops. And, then, there would be no further need for the NRB.
And, just like the current crop, the traditionalists would have no accountability to the laity, whose children were victims of clerical abuse.
Even "traditional" bishops, like Eldon Curtiss of Omaha, had clerical abusers in his diocese, and covered-up for them. So, it would be the same-ole, same-ole, no matter who was in charge.
It is getting more and more obvious this pontiff is deliberately--and arrogantly--pursuing policies in violation of all previous teachings of the Catholic Church, and doing so at breakneck speed in order to establish some sort of pan-religious legacy. Whether he is heretical or not is now a very real issue for theologians--one very difficult to put aside, though most will. But Syncretism and Indifferentism are genuine heresies. If he is right--then the Catholic Church has been wrong for two thousand years. Of course he is dead wrong--once again.
Controversy at Shrine Hasn't Affected ConstructionBy Delia Gallagher
ROME, MAY 13, 2004 (Zenit.org).- Today is the anniversary of the first of the Blessed Virgin Mary's apparitions at Fatima, in 1917.
In recent months, the sanctuary at Fatima was the focus of controversy because of comments by its rector, Monsignor Luciano Gomes Paulo Guerra, that a new Church being built near the shrine would be used for interreligious purposes (see Rome Notes Jan. 1).
I spoke to Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, of the Leiria-Fatima Diocese, to find out the latest on the situation.
Plans for the new church are going ahead, he said. The church will be a Catholic one, much like the Pius X Church in Lourdes, built near the shrine to accommodate the thousands of pilgrims who come to Fatima each month.
As with any Catholic church, it will be open to all, but the services held there will be Catholic.
The bishop told me he had just been to visit Fatima and will be returning for today's celebrations. The controversy of several months ago has not affected either the work on the church nor the number of pilgrims who visit the shrine in Portugal.
"The pilgrims who come here are not concerned by a controversy caused by a few foreigners. People come here to pray, and they continue to come in the thousands," he said.
The president of the Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue, Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, expressed the hope that those devoted to Fatima remember that "the figure of Mary should be one that brings people together rather than divides them."
"The best witness we can give," Archbishop Fitzgerald said, "is to take our example from the words of the Acts of the Apostles, 'See how they love one another.'"
Looks like Mr. Guimares is just making stuff up.
I wonder if the third secret of Fatima includes this...
"Even "traditional" bishops, like Eldon Curtiss of Omaha, had clerical abusers in his diocese, and covered-up for them. So, it would be the same-ole, same-ole, no matter who was in charge."
This is the same old liberal ploy we see in secular politics, where moral lepers try to convince us that moral issues aren't in play because "everybody does it."
Of course, to say that things would be the same whether moral lepers were in charge or whether good, moral men were in charge is ludicrously stupid on the face of it.
No, you're wrong: It is Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva, of the Leiria-Fatima Diocese who is "making stuff up". Bishops have been known to lie; Novus Ordo bishops are notorius for their lying.
Do you want me to post the picture of the Buddhist monk waving his pamphlet, promoting his false religion, in the existing shrine?
Guimaraes says "Recently Msgr. Luciano Guerra himself confirmed that this new church will in fact be used for inter-religious purposes". The article says nothing of the sort and in fact says that the rites for the church will be Catholic.
If the Bishop is really lying, why condemn the Pope - he probably believes his bishops.
A Buddhist gave everyone present at the Congress a pamphlet inviting us to visit the Buddhist Shrine of Zenkoji.
"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]
"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.
Thus I am not surprised that on the basis of this patent falsehood, Ultima Ratio spews forth his usual slanderous hatred of the Holy Father as follows:
It is getting more and more obvious this pontiff is deliberately--and arrogantly--pursuing policies in violation of all previous teachings of the Catholic Church, and doing so at breakneck speed in order to establish some sort of pan-religious legacy. Whether he is heretical or not is now a very real issue for theologians--one very difficult to put aside, though most will. But Syncretism and Indifferentism are genuine heresies.
The Pope has consistently criticized syncretism and indifferentism. Those are not true ecumenism. Ultima Ratio once again deliberately ignores what the Pope actually teaches and claims that the Pope is teaching exactly what he specifically teaches against, and UR does this all on the basis of a vile and malicious rumor spread by schismatics who have a vested interest in justifying their completely unjustifiable disobedience against a perfectly orthodox pope. Moreover, as usual, he goes beyond merely attending schismatic conventicles because of attachment to the Tridentine rite, but actively propagandizes in this forum on behalf of schismatic groups and ridicules and tears down the legitimate authority of the Holy Father.
There are no traditional bishops in AmChurch--or anywhere else outside of Campos and the SSPX.
what is being constructed is a Catholic church = what is being constructed is not a Catholic church
What about your new home, the sedevacantist movement?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.