Skip to comments.Hindu Ritual Performed at Fatima Shrine
Posted on 05/27/2004 10:22:01 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
All the invocations of the pagans are hateful to God because all their gods are devils.1
Saint Francis Xavier wrote these words to Saint Ignatius about the pagan religion of Hinduism. Francis Xavier, writing from India at the time, merely restates the truth from the infallible Sacred Scriptures: The gods of the gentiles are devils. (Psalm 95:5)
Yet on May 5, 2004 the Feast of Pope Saint Pius V the Little Chapel of the Apparitions at Fatima was allowed to be used for a pagan Hindu ceremony. This Little Chapel (also called the Capelinha) is built on the site where Our Blessed Mother appeared to the 3 children of Fatima in 1917.
News of the Hindu worship service at Fatima was broadcast on May 5 on SIC, a national television station in Portugal. CFN spoke with two people in Portugal, independent from one another, who saw the televised newscast. The May 22 Portugal News also reported on the event.2
According to the broadcast, a busload of Hindus were allowed to commandeer the sanctuary inside the Fatima Capelinha and to use the Catholic altar for their rituals. The SIC newscaster said, This is an unprecedented unique moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, prays on the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace.
The outrage occurred with the blessing of Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra. No one may use the Capelinha without Rector Guerras permission.
The Hindus wore traditional garb, a Hindu priest in traditional Hindu vestments led the ceremony that consisted in the offering of flowers and food. This would seem to indicate that the Hindus performed their pagan puja, a ritual in which the offering of flowers and food is central.
After the Hindu worship service at the Catholic altar, the Hindus were escorted by Fatima authorities to see a model of the huge, round- shaped modernistic shrine at Fatima now under construction, a fifty million dollar eyesore that will blot the landscape of Our Ladys apparitions.
One of the Hindus is reported to have said that they go to Fatima because there are many gods, and the gods have wives and companions who will bring good luck. This is a blasphemy against the Queen of Heaven as it places Our Blessed Mother on the same level as some sort of wife of a false god.
Thus, the Hindus did not even come to Fatima to learn of, or take part in, Catholic prayer.3 Rather, they folded the holy event of Fatima into their own superstitions and pagan myths.
These Hindus are said to be from Lisbon, where they have a Hindu temple and a community of a couple hundred. The SIC broadcast showed the Hindus house of worship that contained the many statues of their gods and goddesses.
It is reported that pilgrims who witnessed the event at Fatima were scandalized, but Shrine Rector Guerra defended the use of the Marian Shrine for pagan worship.
Appearing on Portuguese television, Guerra regurgitated the long-discredited, ecumenical slogan that different religions should concentrate on what we have in common and not on what separates us. He also said that all religions are good because they all lead us to God. As reported in previous issues of Catholic Family News, the principle that all religions lead to God is nothing more than one of Freemasonrys fundamental tenets. The French Freemason, Yves Marsaudon wrote, One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry.4
Continuation of the New Ecumenical Orientation
Father Jacques Dupuis (above) at the Fatima Congress in October 2003 not only said that the Council of Florence contains a "horrible text" that must be rejected, but he also uttered the falsehood that the Holy Ghost is "present and operative" in the "sacred rites" and "sacred books" of Buddhism and Hinduism. Fatima Shrine Rector, Msgr. Guerra applauded this heretical speech. Thus it is no wonder that RectorGuerra allowed Hindus to perform pagan ritual inside the Fatima sanctuary.
Readers will recall that this is the same Msgr. Guerra who hosted the Interfaith Congress at Fatima in October 2003. I traveled to Fatima to attend the event and reported on it in recent issues of CFN. It was a Congress that would have horrified all pre-Vatican II Popes, had any one of them walked in on it.
The first two days of the Congress contained Catholic speakers promoting the ecumenical agenda. On the third day Sunday representatives of Catholicism, the Schismatic Orthodox, Anglicanism, Hinduism, Islam and Buddhism each gave testimony of the importance of sanctuary within their various creeds. At the Congress:
The ecumenical theologian Father Jacques Dupuis called the defined dogma outside the Church there is no salvation, a horrible text that must be rejected;
Dupuis claimed that all religions are positively willed by God and that non-Catholics do not have to convert to the one true Catholic Church for unity and salvation. He said that Catholics and non- Catholics are equal members in the Reign of God.
Dupuis also said that the purpose of ecumenical dialogue is not to convert others to the Catholic Church, but to make a Christian a better Christian, a Hindu a better Hindu;
Dupuis said further that the Holy Ghost is present and operative in the sacred books and sacred rites of Buddhism and Hinduism;
The Congress speakers placed all religious sanctuaries on the same level, whether they be the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima, the Mecca of Islam or the Kyoto of Shintoism.
Father Arul Irudayam, Rector of the Marian Shrine in Vailankanni, India told the audience on Sunday that Hindus now perform their pagan rituals inside the Sanctuary of the Catholic Shrine.
These and other outrages elicited nothing but praise and applause from the audience, including applause from Shrine Rector Guerra, the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, and the Apostolic Delegate of Portugal.5 (I was an eyewitness to their reaction). Cardinal Policarpo of Lisbon, and Archbishop Fitzgerald from the Vaticans Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, also voiced approval for the ecumenical errors spouted at the Congress.6
News also surfaced that Fatima would now become an Interfaith Shrine, where all religions would be allowed to perform their pagan rituals. Archbishop Fitzgerald and Rector Guerra issued half-hearted denials of this. But their denials only affirmed the ecumenical and pan-religious orientation now underway at Fatima.7
Yet because of these half-hearted denials, many shallow individuals who should know better exclaimed that there is no danger of Fatima losing its Catholic identity because Church officials have told us that Fatima will not be an interfaith Shrine.
Chief among these is Father Robert J. Fox, who in a recent issue of his Immaculate Heart Messenger,8 attacked those who resist the new ecumenical orientation at Fatima and defended Msgr. Guerra.9
This can only mean that Father Robert J. Fox agrees with the outrages perpetrated at Msgr. Guerras conference of October 2003.
Father Fox obviously agrees with the modernist Father Jacques Dupuis who says that the Council of Florence contains a horrible text that must be rejected;
Father Fox obviously agrees that we must not try to convert non-Catholics to the one true Church for salvation;
Father Fox obviously agrees that it is a good thing that Hindus perform their pagan rituals inside the Marian Shrine at Vailankanni.
Otherwise, why would Fr. Fox defend Msgr. Guerra and his ecumenical Congress, where Guerra applauded all of these vagaries?
Fr. Fox assures his readers that Fatima Will Retain Its Catholic Identity. Fr. Fox said the same thing on an EWTN interview in late April with Father Mitch Pacwa. Here Fr. Fox ridiculed those of us who reported on Fatimas new interfaith orientation, he claimed that the recent stories about Fatima are nothing but fabrications and he assured the viewers that despite what they hear about whats going on at Fatima, theres nothing to worry about.
The recent Hindu ceremony at Fatima demonstrates how fraudulent are Fr. Foxs assurances. (For a superb response to Father Fox, read Christopher Ferraras Fr. Fox;s Modernist Assault on Fatima.)
On an April 25, EWTN broadcast with Father Mitch Pacwa, Father Robert J. Fox ridiculed those Catholics who resist the ecumenical orientation at Fatima, he assured the viewers that everything they hear about what's going on at Fatima is a "fabrication", and that Fatima will retain its Catholic identity. The recent Hindu cermony at Fatima shows how fraudulent are Father Fox's "assurances". It also means that Father Fox and EWTN are guilty of neutralizing the healthy resistance that Catholics should mount against these interfaith outrages
Thus, Fr. Fox, Father Pacwa and EWTN are guilty of neutralizing the healthy resistance that thousands of Catholics should mount against the outrages now perpetrated at Fatima. They have effectively placed themselves on the side of those who would permit pagan ceremonies in the Catholic sanctuary at the Fatima Shrine. I feel sorry for those who look to Fr. Fox and EWTN to tell them the truth.10
Zenit News on May 13 likewise ran an article boasting that the construction of the new, futuristic Shrine at Fatima is moving forward despite the controversy surrounding the alleged Interfaith Shrine11.
Yet, as I stressed repeatedly in Catholic Family News, it does not matter whether the site is formally called an Interfaith Shrine or not. Now that the ecumenical mind-set is accepted by Fatima officials (I said in December 2003), it is only a matter of time before this blasphemy of pagan rituals in Catholic sanctuaries takes place at Fatima.
Only five months after the publication of these words, the blasphemy took place. Our Ladys Shrine at Fatima with the blessing of Rector Guerra has now been used for pagan worship.
This blasphemy will not incur Gods blessing, but His wrath. The Lord God tells us solemnly in Sacred Scripture, For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God ... (Dt. 5:9)
Imagine how the prophet Isaiah would react if he learned that the high priest of the Temple at Jerusalem allowed the Holy of Holies to be used for Hindu worship or pagan ceremonies? As a prophet of the one true God, would he have cracked an ecumenical grin saying, thats okay because all religions lead us to God?
Far from it. This blasphemy, were it enacted in the Temple at Isaiahs time, would probably result in the Israelites being cast into exile.
Our Lord in the Old Testament did not tell the Israelites that what unites them to the pagans is greater than what divides them. In fact, any time the Israelites engaged in worship or any ecumenical compromise with pagan religions, the Lord God equated this with harlotry and meted out to them severe punishments.12
What was true for the one true religion of the Old Testament is even more true for the One True Religion of the New Covenant (the Catholic Church), since the rites and ceremonies of the Old Covenant were superseded and perfected in the New.
Likewise, the First Commandment mandates, I am the Lord Thy God, thou shalt not have strange gods before Me, and the gods of Hinduism are strange gods that all of mankind are forbidden to worship. As Saint Francis Xavier rightly explained, All the invocations of the pagans are hateful to God because all their gods are devils.
Fidelity to Catholic Tradition Equated with Talibanism
Then on May 7, 2004, Notícias de Fátima, a local newspaper in Fatima on friendly terms with the Fatima Shrine, published a defense of the new ecumenical orientation. It contained an article headlined Radical Movements Against Ecumenism that chaffed against the Open Letter to the Faithful of Portugual Concerning the Scandal at the Fatima Shrine that was published in three Portuguese newspapers by Father Nicholas Gruners organization.13
The May 7 edition of Noticias de Fatima, a local newspaper on friendly terms with the Fatima Shrine, published a feeble defense of this new ecumenical orientation. It equated those Catholics who reisist ecumenism with the "Taliban" (Above is Oct. 24 edition with the headline: "Sanctuary for Various Creeds".. Graphic of actual May 7 edition will be published here soon).
In this May 7 article, Msgr. Guerra defended the ecumenical initiative, saying that the Shrine is open to dialogue with different religions and religious congregations, as it is practiced in the Catholic Church for a long time already.
The long time to which Guerra refers is only the 40 chaotic years since Vatican II, a time of unprecedented novelty that spawned the greatest crisis of Faith in Church history. For one thousand, nine hundred and sixty-two years before Vatican II that is, since the founding of the Church by Jesus Christ the Catholic Popes uniformly condemned the type of ecumenism and interreligious dialogue practiced since the Council as grave sins against the Faith.
Notícias de Fátima then quoted the Capuchin Brother Fernando Valente who said, We deal with traditionalists and fundamentalists; with people who actually missed the train. People, for whom time seems to have stopped decades ago, who are way back behind reality, and have therefore to be considered on a mental and spiritual level, comparable to the Taliban.
Notícias de Fátima then said, Declaring this Catholic Talibanism to be unhealthy, Br. Valente recalls that It is possible to interpret the Bible in such a way that it can say anything. This is what these radical movements do, he adds, remembering that it is necessary to read the Bible with the spirit with which it was written.
So Catholics faithful to Tradition are compared to the Taliban, a name calculated to make us look as nasty, as barbaric, as unreasonable as possible. According to Brother Valente and Msgr. Guerra, it is now considered a crime to be faithful to Catholic Truth as it has always been taught by the Church throughout the centuries, and by the consistent teachings of the Popes.
We are in a situation similar to that of the Fourth Century, when over 80% of the worlds bishops fell into the heresy of Arianism. At this time, Saint Basil lamented, Only one offense is now vigorously punished, an accurate observance of our fathers traditions.14 Yet Catholic history condemns the majority who accepted the novel teachings, and praises the minority who maintained Tradition. This is a lesson to us all.
Brother Valente misleads the reader when he says, It is possible to interpret the Bible in such a way that it can say anything, claiming that This is what these radical movements do.
Yet the Catholic opposition to ecumenism has nothing to do with subjective interpretation of Scripture, but of objective fidelity to Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church herself tells us how we must interpret various points of Scripture when the Church solemnly defines a truth found in Scripture and Tradition.
Once the Church pronounces a solemn definition, we are not free to interpret the Scriptures against this infallible Catholic truth.15 The defined definition of the Church tells us the spirit in which this-or-that Gospel passage is written, and we may not depart from this in the name of a new ecumenical delirium.
Brother Valente complains of Catholics who missed the train, saying that for them, time stopped decades ago. Yet in saying this, Brother Valente reveals himself as a modernist, since it is modernism that teaches that the religious truths of yesterday must be discarded for the new religious truths of today.16
Brother Valente, who happily rejects tradition, and urges others do to the same, forgets the solemn condemnation infallibly taught by the Second Council of Nicea:
If anyone rejects any written or unwritten tradition of the church, let him be anathema.17
All of the Rector Guerras, Fr. Foxes and Brother Valentes in the world no matter how much they squawk, no matter how often they castigate faithful Catholics cannot change the infallible Catholic dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
The Council of Florence defined infallibly that Pagans, Jews, heretics and schismatics are outside the Catholic Church, and as such, can never be partakers of eternal life, unless before death they are joined to the one true Church of Jesus Christ, the Catholic Church.18 Msgr. Guerra, however, applauds Father Jacques Dupuis, who calls this defined dogma from the Council of Florence a horrible text that must be trashed.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent, faithful to perennial truth, teaches: infidels, heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons are excluded from the Churchs pale.19 In other words, Protestants, Jews, Muhammadans, Hindus, Buddhists, etc., are not part of the Catholic Church, which is the Kingdom of God on earth.20
How many times is it necessary to repeat the unchanging teaching of the Popes on this fundamental dogma against todays ecumenists who claim that salvation is found in any religion? Here we will give just a few examples:
Pope Saint Gregory the Great: (590-604) Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped, saving from within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.21
Pope Pius VIII (1829- 1831): ... We profess that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church ... the Church is the pillar and firmament of truth, as the apostle Paul teaches (1 Tim. 3). In reference to these words St. Augustine says: Whoever is without the Church will not be reckoned among the sons, and whoever does not want to have the Church as Mother will not have God as Father.22
Pope Gregory XVI (1831 - 1846): It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her (the Catholic Church); all who are outside Her will not be saved.23
Blessed Pope Pius IX (1846-1878): It must be held as a matter of faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.24
Pope Pius XI (1922-1939): The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation.25
Pope Pius XII complained in his 1950 Encyclical Humani Generis: Some reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation.
Pius complaint could be dead aimed at the Rector Guerras, the Fr. Foxes, the Brother Valentes, and all those in high place who not only abandon this infallible dogma, but publicly castigate those Catholics who defend this Divinely revealed Truth.
Defined Dogma Cannot Change
It must be noted too that the First Vatican Council solemnly defined that even a Pope may not teach a new doctrine, change doctrine, or interpret Catholic dogma in a different manner from the way it has always been taught. The Popes themselves are bound to the dogmatic definitions, and to the consistent, unchanging teaching of these doctrines throughout the centuries.26
In a sermon on the subject, the eminent 19th Century Cardinal John Henry Newman quoted a Pastoral Letter from the Bishops of Switzerland concerning Papal Infallibility, and on what a Pope may or may not teach. In this Pastoral Letter, which received the approval of Blessed Pius IX, the Swiss Bishops stated clearly the Catholic doctrine on the subject:
It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object of a dogmatic definition. He is tied up and limited to the divine revelation and to the truths which that revelation contains. He is tied up and limited by the creeds, already in existence, and by the preceding definitions of the Church. He is tied up and limited by the divine law, and by the constitution of the Church ...27
Now todays ecumenism is a new doctrine that says that non-Catholics need not convert to the Catholic Church for unity and salvation, and that false religions with their pagan gods are equal partners in dialogue with the one true Church established by Christ. This is contrary to divine revelation, contrary to the creeds already in existence, contrary to preceding definitions of the Church. No authority in the Church may force a Catholic to abandon the traditional teaching and adopt this new mind-set.28
In fact, Pope Pius XI, in his 1928 Encyclical Mortalium Animos, condemned the type of ecumenism that has been nurtured since the Council. He said that the Holy See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the ecumenical assemblies, nor is it lawful for Catholics to support or work for such (ecumenical) enterprises, for if they do so they will be giving countenance to a false Christianity, quite alien to the one Church of Christ.
Pius stated: Unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one faith of Christians and reiterated the truth that the only true unity can be that of the return of non-Catholics to the one true Church of Christ.
He said that these ecumenical enterprises are full of fair and alluring words that cloak a most serious error, subversive to the Catholic Faith.29
The Dutch Bishops Against Ecumenism
Twenty years after Pius XI spoke these words, we see a magnificent example of a national episcopacys fidelity to this teaching.
In 1948 the Catholic Bishops of the Netherlands issued a Pastoral Letter on why Catholics may have nothing to do with the Amsterdam Assembly, which was a World Council of Churches ecumenical gathering.
There can be no question said the Dutch hierarchy, of the Holy Catholic Church taking part in the Congress at Amsterdam.
The Dutch bishops explained why:
This aloofness is not based on any fear of losing prestige or any other merely tactical consideration. This attitude solely proceeds from the conviction of the Church that she must be unshakably true to the task with which Jesus Christ has entrusted her. For she is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which was founded by Jesus Christ in order that His work of salvation might be carried on through her unto the end of all time; she is the Mystical Body of Christ; she is Christs Bride. In her this unity exists imperishably; for Christ has promised her that the gates of hell should not prevail against her (Matt. 16:18).
That is why the divisions between Christians can only be put an end to in one way: by a return to her; by a return within the unity which has always been preserved within her. If however, the Catholic Church were to participate in the endeavor towards a new religious unity and this on an equal footing with the others, then by doing so she would in fact admit that the unity, willed by Christ, does not continue within her and that, therefore, there really is no Church of Christ. Indeed, it is just by her very aloofness that she must not cease to manifest that within her the unity as willed by Christ has always been preserved and that within her this unity remains accessible to all."30
The Dutch bishops go on to state that there can be no unity without unity of faith, that is, unity of belief in the truths taught by the Church, revealed by God.
This is the truth taught throughout the centuries: that the Catholic Church is the one true Church established by Christ, and that the Church may not join with false religions in a search for unity a unity that the Catholic Church already possesses.
Further, Pope Leo XIII rightly taught that to treat all religions as equal is to adopt a line of action that leads to godlessness, since it gives the impression that all religions are true, despite their contradictory doctrines. This is not only unreasonable, but in the practical order, it leads men, who have not rejected the principle of contradiction, to godlessness. They will come to believe that if all religions are true, then none of them can be true, since these true religions contradict one another.
This ecumenism also places the salvation of millions of souls in jeopardy, since influential members of one true Church, the only ark of salvation, now give the impression by their words and deeds that non- Catholics may find salvation in the darkness of paganism, and in the falsehood of their man-made creeds. Thus, the non-Catholic will be scandalized into believing it unnecessary to convert to Christs one true Church for salvation. This is a betrayal of Christs Divine Mandate. Our Lord said to His apostles, Go forth and teach, not Go forth and dialogue.
Yet Msgr. Guerra ignores these basic Catholic truths, and opens the Fatima Shrine to Hindu rituals at a Catholic altar. This blasphemy makes it necessary for the Capelinha to be re- consecrated, as it has now been desecrated by the pagan worship of false gods.
It should also be noted that the Bishop of Leiria- Fatima forbids the Latin Tridentine Mass in his diocese. This means that the Fatima Sanctuary may be used for Hindu ceremonies, but not for the Catholic Mass of all time. The diabolic disorientation of these men has never appeared so diabolic: for it is here we see their hatred of true Catholic worship, and their love for the pagan rituals of a religion whose gods are devils.
A Second Desecration
In 1922, Portuguese Freemasons placed four bombs in the original Capelinha built on the site where Our Lady appeared to the children. They were detonated on March 5-6, and severely damaged the chapel, blowing a hole straight up through the roof. A Mass of reparation was held on May 13 the same year at which twenty-thousand people attended. Forty thousand attended the Mass held there on October 13. By the end of 1922, the chapel was being rebuilt.31
Now in May of 2004, the Capelinha is desecrated again. This time the weapon was not the bombs of Freemasonry, but the ecumenical religion of Freemasonry, which allows Hindus to perform pagan ceremonies in Catholic chapels, and propounds the lie that all religions lead to God. And this time, there will be no Mass of reparation for this sacrilege, no public processions asking Gods forgiveness, no immediate re-consecration of the chapel. Rather, Shrine Rector Guerra, Fr. Robert J. Fox, and the various apologists for the New Fatima will continue to attack those who defend perennial Catholic truth against these blasphemies that cry to Heaven for vengeance.
Let us ignore these blind guides and pray for their conversion back to the Catholicism of their youth. They have abandoned the Catholic Faith of Saint Francis Xavier, of Pope Pius IX, Pius X, Pius XI and Pius XII. They promote a new modernist religion that claims the Catholic truths of yesterday must be trodden underfoot to make way for the new ecumenical truths of today. They have violated their Oath Against Modernism and as such, in the words of Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton in the objective order they are sinners against the Catholic Faith and common perjurers.32
As for us, we will remain steadfast in our public resistance to the new ecumenical orientation. Let us continue to offer Masses, Rosaries and prayers of reparation for the blasphemies against the Immaculate Heart of Mary now perpetrated by those men at Fatima who should be Her defenders.
Our Lady Conqueror of All Heresies, pray for us.
1. Saint Francis Xavier, James Brodrick, S.J., (New York: Wicklow Press, 1952), p. 135.
2. Hindus Worship at Fatima Altar, Portugal News, May 22, 2004.
3. There is nothing wrong with a non- Catholic coming to a Catholic Shrine to perhaps learn what the Shrine is about, to learn about Catholic devotion or Catholic prayer, or to pray that the one true God leads him to the truth. This must be said, since our opposition to the Interfaith Shrine has been falsely interpreted to mean that we belive that non-Catholics should never be allowed to enter a Catholic Shrine. This is not the case. In fact the fiercely anti-Catholic Jew, Alphonsus Ratisbonne, was miraculously converted to the Catholic Faith when he visited the church of SantAndrea delle Fratte in Rome. The anti-Catholic Dr. Felix Leseur was miraculously converted to Catholicism when he visited Our Ladys Shrine at Lourdes. The real problem with todays new orientation, is that non-Catholics are now allowed to worship at the Shrine as non-Catholics, they are allowed to perform their pagan rituals (and invoke their false gods) inside the Catholic Church, and they are told that there is no need for them to convert to Christs one true Church for salvation.
4. 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. 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.
5. It should be noted that the Apostolic Delegate was there only for the Saturday sessions, which included the outrageous speech by Father Jacques Dupuis. The Apostolic Delegate was not present for the Sunday session wherein the various religions gave testimony of the importance of sanctuary.
6. My three previous reports on the Fatima Congress are: Fatima to Become Interfaith Shrine, an Account from One Who Was There, Catholic Family News, Dec. 2003; More News on the Fatima Interfaith Program, Catholic Familiy News, January, 2004; Shrine Rector Confirms New Ecumenical Orientation at Fatima, Catholic Family News, February, 2004.
7. For example, the Fatima Shrines December 28 Communique says that the only time the Shrine Rector spoke at the Congress was at the final session of the Congress and it provides the following verbatim from the speech: It is true that (...) we are all very far from journeying towards the only, or through the only, bridge. We could therefore relax, since, if ones bridge is collapsing, it could happen that the neighbors bridge is not. But it is also true that a disease of epidemic proportions seems to have threatened the faith of all religions, of all confessions, of all traditions, during the last decades. Thats why we rejoice in the brotherly presence of the representatives of the various spiritual schools and we are sure that their presence here opened the way for a greater future openness of this Shrine; Shrine that seems already vocationed, thanks to divine providence, for contacts and for dialogue (...). This calling is almost explicit, in regard to the oriental, orthodox and Catholic churches, in the message of the Angel of Peace; and, in regard to the Islamic religion, in the name itself that God chose for the town where Mary would one day appear: Fatima. (emphasis added) This clearly confirms the new ecumenical orientation at Fatima.
8. Immaculate Heart Messenger, April- June, 2004. In these pathetic articles, Fr. Fox made a series of ad hominum attacks against Father Nicholas Gruner. Yet he made no complaint whatsoever about Msgr. Guerra, even though Fr. Fox has read my articles where I explained that I was an eyewitness to the ecumenical outrages at Guerras Congress, including Father Dupuis speech and Father Irudayams presentation wherein he said that Hindus now perform their rituals inside the sanctuary. I also said in my article (that Fr. Fox quoted from in his magazine) that I tape-recorded all of these conferences, so Fr. Fox knows I am telling the truth of what took place there. Thus, he obviously agrees that the ecumenical outrages perpetrated at Guerras Congress are good and praiseworthy.
9. Further, Fr. Fox defends the fact that Fatima needs a larger Shrine. But no one is saying that a larger church should not be built. I have been to Fatima and Im aware that the present basilica can not hold many people. But there is no need for the authorities at Fatima to build a hideous new modernistic structure that looks like a futuristic spaceship hanger. Why not build a larger church that is beautiful, majestic, and reflects the glorious patrimony of Catholic architecture that awes and edifies? The building now under construction does none of this. The eminent theologian Msgr. Rudolph Bandas quoted Cardinal Constantini, Chairman of the Pontifical Academy of Art, who rightly categorized modernistic art and architecture in Catholic churches as visual blasphemies. See Modernistic Art and Divine Worship, Mgr. Rudolph Bandas, October, 1960. Reprinted in Catholic Family News, April, 2004. (Reprint #930 available from CFN for $1.75.)
10. Father Mitch Pacwa told the viewers on this broadcast that EWTN has called in Fr. Fox to tell them what was going on at Fatima, despite the fact that Fr. Fox was not present at the October Congress. Yet EWTN never contacted CFN, to investigate the truth of what we were saying, even though I published in my reports that I attended the Interreligious Congress at Fatima and was an eyewitness to all that occurred, including the heterodox statements of Father Jacques Dupuis.
11. Fatimas New Church Moves Ahead Zenit News, May 13, 2004.
12. For example, see Ezechial, Chapter 15, especially v. 35 ff.; Psalm 105, v. 28-43; Osee, Chapter 3, v. 1, Chapter 4, v. 12-14.
13. This Open Letter was published in the May 2004 issue of Catholic Family News. It is also on the web at: http://www.fatima.org/042804open.htm
14. St. Basil the Great (ca. 330-ca. 379), Epistulae, in a letter to the bishops of Italy and Gaul (in 376).
15. Neither are we free to interpret Scripture against the consistent teachings of the Ordinary Magisterium throughout the centuries: that is, a Catholic doctrine that the Church has always taught, even though it may not have been the subject of a dogmatic definition.
16. Pope Saint Pius X taught in Pascendi, his Encyclical Against Modernism, But for Catholics nothing will remove the authority of the second Council of Nicea, where it condemns those who dare, after the impious fashion of heretics, to deride the ecclesiastical traditions, to invent novelties of some kind or endeavor by malice or craft to overthrow any one of the legitimate traditions of the Catholic Church. Wherefore the Roman Pontiffs, Pius IV and Pius IX, ordered the insertion in the profession of faith of the following declaration: I most firmly admit and embrace the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and other observances and constitutions of the Church.
17. Cited from The Great Facade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic Church, Christopher A. Ferrara and Thomas E. Woods Jr. (Wyoming, MN: Remnant Press, 2002), p 28.
18. The dogma Outside the Church there is no salvation was infallibly defined three times. The most forceful and explicit definition of this dogma 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. [Pope Eugene IV , Council of Florence, February 4, 1442.]
19. Catechism of the Council of Trent, McHugh & Callan Translation, (Rockford: Tan, Reprinted 1982), p. 101.
20. The eminent theologian Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton explains that the word Church has a very definite meaning. It means, the Kingdom of God on earth, the People of the Divine Covenant, the one social unit outside of which no one can be saved. See The Meaning of the Word Church, Msgr. Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1954, republished in the November 2000 Catholic Family News. (Reprint #519 available from CFN for $1.75.)
21. Moralia, XIV: 5.
22. Ubi Primam, Inaugural Encyclical of Pope Leo XII, May 5, 1824.
23. Encyclical Summo Jugiter, May 27, 1832.
24. Denzinger 1647.
25. Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
26. It is defined dogma that a Pope may not teach new doctrine, and that doctrine cannot change. It also needs to be stressed repeatedly that even a Pope may not change defined dogma, or interpret Catholic dogma in a different manner from the way it has always been taught. This was solemnly defined. When Vatican I defined papal infallibility, it also taught with equal infallibility: 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 IV, Chapter IV. Pastor Aeternus.) Vatican I also taught, The meaning of Sacred Dogmas, which must always be preserved, is that which our Holy Mother the Church has determined. Never is it permissible to depart from this in the name of a deeper understanding. (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. Thus, it is defined dogma that a Pope may not teach new doctrine (such as ecumenism) and that doctrine cannot change. This is only fitting to the nature of truth itself, which cannot change. For if this or that Catholic truth can change, then it was never true. It is here we see that modernists destroy not only all idea of religion, but all idea of truth itself.
27. Taken from a sermon by Cardinal Newman published in Lead Kindly Light, The Life of John Henry Newman, Michael Davies (Neumann Press, Long Prairie, 2001) p. 184. (Emphasis added.)
28. This means Catholics must resist ecumenism even if it comes from a Pope. The great theologian Suarez says If (the Pope) lays down an order contrary to right customs one does not have to obey him, if he tries to do something manifestly opposed to justice and to the common good, it would be licit to resist him, if he attacks by force, he could be repelled by force, with the moderation characteristic of good defense. (De Fide, disp. X. Sect. VI, n. 16. Quoted from Pope Pauls New Mass, Michael Davies, Angelus Press, p. 602).
29. See Mortalium Animos, On Fostering True Christian Unity, Pope Pius XI, January 6, 1928.
30. The Pastoral Letter of the Dutch Hierarchy About the Amsterdam Assembly of 1948", published The Church and the Churches, (Westminster: Newman Press, 1960), pp. 290-294. (Emphasis added.)
31. Fatima in Twilight, Mark Fellows (Niagara Falls: Marmion Publishing, 2003), Chapter 4, pp. 45-46.
32. Msgr. Guerra and Fr. Robert J. Fox both would have taken the Oath Against Modernism, since the Oath was not retired until 1967. Guerra and Fox both promote the new ecumenical religion, and attack those who insist that Catholic Truth can not change. Msgr. Fenton said in his 1960 article that any priest who promoted Modernism after taking the Oath Against Modernism would mark himself as a sinner against the Catholic Faith and as a common perjurer. (See The Sacrorum Antistitum and the Background of the Oath Against Modernism, Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, The American Ecclesiastical Review, October, 1960, pp. 259-260.) This is why we exhort our readers to pray for these men, but do not follow or support them.
According to the broadcast, a busload of Hindus were allowed to commandeer the sanctuary inside the Fatima Capelinha and to use the Catholic altar for their rituals. The SIC newscaster said, This is an unprecedented unique moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, prays on the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace.
Does anyone still believe this is a hoax concocted by extreme "anti-ecumenical" traditionalists, who somehow have Portugese television stations and newspapers in on their sinister "Church bashing"?
I have no doubt our little apostate will claim this is all lies. It will not matter that this information is coming from the general media. It matters not to those in a "sinkhole" of denial how much evidence you post. They will see it when they believe it and even then the question will be "what is wrong with that?" They will spurt out their hard words about how you are wrong for expecting respect for a Christian shrine. They will "spur" on others to think ill of you.
Worry not I've read the Book, they lose.
Thanks for posting yet another thorough exposee of the fraud which passes for ecumenism today.
Although there are plenty of good points to ponder in this interesting article by John Vennari (a Catholic journalist par excellence), of particular alarm was the following:
"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."
Do you think there's any link between freemasonry and the current ecumaniac agenda of modernist Catholics?
When a modernist bishop holds his inauguration parties at a masonic shrine, it sometimes makes me wonder...
"Father, have mercy on them for they know not what they do"
Or do they???
This can't be. I read right here on this site that the Fatima travesty is really a traditionalist conspiracy to bash the Pope and Living Magisterium.
I know little about freemasonry except for what I read in history and on this site. Recently, I was informed by an actual freemason that the goal of freemasonry is remove all offensive elements of religion. That is the closest present day admission I know of which explains the modernism in the Church.
What happened to "unity in diversity"?
Aren't you being disobedient to His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, sacred prince of the Church?
Why yes, yes I am. I am one of those wicked "schismatics" who refuses to deny the Resurrection.
Yes, I do.
Does anyone doubt Rome is no longer fully Catholic? This is heresy--and attributable to the Vatican. Anyone on this site still believe Lefebvre was wrong and this Pontiff was right?
His Eminence Kasper does not deny the Resurrection. Stop slandering him - certainly there's enough to criticize without making stuff up.
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition. (Avery Dulles, review of Kasper's 1977 Jesus the Christ)
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion (First Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4 §2)
Anyone on this site still believe Lefebvre was wrong and this Pontiff was right?
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries." This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.
Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra §9-10)
We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force. (Pius VI, Charitas §24)
I suppose you're also the type who obstinately refuse to "cease and desist immediately" from attempts to convert the Russian Orthodox to the one, true Faith?
To learn about the serious harm you may be causing (a scandal to the eyes of the world), I suggest you carefully reflect on His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper's "code of behavior":
"certainly there's enough to criticize without making stuff up"
Yes, let's give His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper some credit - at least he didn't hand out certificates to German women so they could murder their babies - for as long as his colleague, Cardinal Lehmann.
Sadly, sometimes the truth is even stranger than fiction.
"No longer fully Catholic" is reminiscent of "slightly pregnant".
One either is, or one isn't.
If one espouses heresy knowingly, publically (to at least two others), and pertinaciously in the face of correction, one is a formal heretic, and hence no longer Catholic.
Bottom line, Rome isn't Rome. The apostate church is not the Roman Catholic Church.
Do you mean to say that you think even the Jews need to convert to the Catholic Faith?
Didn't you read "Reflections on Covenant and Mission"?
Ignoring Cardinal Kasper (a staunch public supporter of "Reflections") is one thing, but what about Cardinal Keeler and the rest of the USCCB?
Are you going to oppose them too?
It sounds like you and your parish may be in urgent need of "updating", "re-configuration", "re-alignment" or "restoration".
Now don't say you didn't have a choice!
O for crying out loud, ping Sinkspur already.
>> "No longer fully Catholic" is reminiscent of "slightly pregnant". <<
Nonsense. There can be many in Rome who are apostate, while the Pope is merely an imprefect adminsitrator who has failed to weed out heresy. Even under the most wicked of Popes, Rome was never fully un-Catholic.
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.