Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hindu Ritual Performed at Fatima Shrine
Catholic Family News ^ | June 2004 | John Vennari

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 Guerra’s 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 Lady’s 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 Freemasonry’s 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 Vatican’s 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. Guerra’s 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 Fatima’s 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 what’s going on at Fatima, there’s nothing to worry about.

The recent Hindu ceremony at Fatima demonstrates how fraudulent are Fr. Fox’s “assurances”. (For a superb response to Father Fox, read Christopher Ferrara’s “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 Shrine”11.

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 Lady’s Shrine at Fatima — with the blessing of Rector Guerra — has now been used for pagan worship.

This blasphemy will not incur God’s 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, “that’s okay because all religions lead us to God”?

Far from it. This blasphemy, were it enacted in the Temple at Isaiah’s 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 Gruner’s 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 world’s 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 Church’s 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 today’s 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 today’s 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 episcopacy’s 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 Christ’s 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 Christ’s one true Church for salvation. This is a betrayal of Christ’s 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 God’s 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.

Notes:

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 Sant’Andrea delle Fratte in Rome. The anti-Catholic Dr. Felix Leseur was miraculously converted to Catholicism when he visited Our Lady’s Shrine at Lourdes. The real problem with today’s 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 Christ’s 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 Shrine’s 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 one’s bridge is collapsing, it could happen that the neighbor’s 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. That’s 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 Guerra’s Congress, including Father Dupuis’ speech and Father Irudayam’s 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 Guerra’s 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 I’m 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. “Fatima’s 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 Paul’s 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.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic
KEYWORDS: blasphemy; catholic; catholiclist; ecumenical; fatima
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

1 posted on 05/27/2004 10:22:02 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Akron Al; Alberta's Child; Andrew65; AniGrrl; Antoninus; apologia_pro_vita_sua; attagirl; ...

Fatima ping


2 posted on 05/27/2004 10:24:29 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
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.

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"?

3 posted on 05/27/2004 10:34:39 AM PDT by CatherineSiena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

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.


4 posted on 05/27/2004 10:39:29 AM PDT by Mark in the Old South
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

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...
http://www.rcf.org/docs/bishop_lucas01.htm
"Father, have mercy on them for they know not what they do"
Or do they???


5 posted on 05/27/2004 10:54:07 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish
News of the Hindu worship service at Fatima was broadcast on May 5 on SIC, a national television station in Portugal.

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.

6 posted on 05/27/2004 10:56:12 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena

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.


7 posted on 05/27/2004 11:00:57 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

What happened to "unity in diversity"?
Aren't you being disobedient to His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, sacred prince of the Church?


8 posted on 05/27/2004 11:19:44 AM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
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.

9 posted on 05/27/2004 11:21:45 AM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
Do you think there's any link between freemasonry and the current ecumaniac agenda of modernist Catholics?

Yes, I do.

10 posted on 05/27/2004 11:22:58 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Mark in the Old South
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.


Excellent thoughts, my friend. Bears repeating. Indeed the enemies of the Church will lose in the end, likely as individuals and surely as a force of evil. Yes, they will lose in the end, even though they might think it is good to take it in the end right now. But the end times are up to God, not them.
11 posted on 05/27/2004 11:44:56 AM PDT by broadsword (Liberalism is the societal AIDS virus that helps Islam to wage war against human civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

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?


12 posted on 05/27/2004 12:44:08 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Why yes, yes I am. I am one of those wicked "schismatics" who refuses to deny the Resurrection.

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)

13 posted on 05/27/2004 12:45:31 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Does anyone doubt Rome is no longer fully Catholic?
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)

14 posted on 05/27/2004 12:55:52 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

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":
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/049bev3-08-2004.htm


15 posted on 05/27/2004 1:27:33 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

"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.
http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Igpress/2001-04/wgermany.html
Sadly, sometimes the truth is even stranger than fiction.


16 posted on 05/27/2004 1:40:23 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Does anyone doubt Rome is no longer fully Catholic? This is heresy--and attributable to the Vatican.

Hi Ultima,

"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.

17 posted on 05/27/2004 1:56:08 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

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?
http://www.seattlecatholic.com/article_20020918_From_Ratisbonne_to_Reflections.html
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!


18 posted on 05/27/2004 2:04:54 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: broadsword; sinkspur

O for crying out loud, ping Sinkspur already.


19 posted on 05/27/2004 2:29:58 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey

>> "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.


20 posted on 05/27/2004 2:32:32 PM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
Bottom line, Rome isn't Rome. The apostate church is not the Roman Catholic Church.

Bottom line, you are a heretic for rejecting the infallibility of the Roman Church and a schismatic for rejecting the authority of the Vicar of Christ and St. Peter.

By the way, if God asks at the judgment what made you think His Holiness Paul VI was a pertinacious heretic, you'd better have a good answer - you still haven't given me one at all. Of course, the "Credo of the People of God" is totally contrary to Modernism - hard to find heresy there.

21 posted on 05/27/2004 3:04:21 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey

Where is the heresy?

WITH THIS SOLEMN LITURGY we end the celebration of the nineteenth centenary of the martyrdom of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, and thus close the Year of Faith. We dedicated it to the commemoration of the holy apostles in order that we might give witness to our steadfast will to be faithful to the deposit of the faith[1] which they transmitted to us, and that we might strengthen our desire to live by it in the historical circumstances in which the Church finds herself in her pilgrimage in the midst of the world.

We feel it our duty to give public thanks to all who responded to our invitation by bestowing on the Year of Faith a splendid completeness through the deepening of their personal adhesion to the word of God, through the renewal in various communities of the profession of faith, and through the testimony of a Christian life. To our brothers in the episcopate especially, and to all the faithful of the holy Catholic Church, we express our appreciation and we grant our blessing.

Likewise, we deem that we must fulfill the mandate entrusted by Christ to Peter, whose successor we are, the last in merit; namely, to confirm our brothers in the faith.[2] With the awareness, certainly, of our human weakness, yet with all the strength impressed on our spirit by such a command, we shall accordingly make a profession of faith, pronounce a creed which, without being strictly speaking a dogmatic definition, repeats in substance, with some developments called for by the spiritual condition of our time, the creed of Nicea, the creed of the immortal tradition of the holy Church of God.

In making this profession, we are aware of the disquiet which agitates certain modern quarters with regard to the faith. They do not escape the influence of a world being profoundly changed, in which so many certainties are being disputed or discussed. We see even Catholics allowing themselves to be seized by a kind of passion for change and novelty. The Church, most assuredly, has always the duty to carry on the effort to study more deeply and to present, in a manner ever better adapted to successive generations, the unfathomable mysteries of God, rich for all in fruits of salvation. But at the same time the greatest care must be taken, while fulfilling the indispensable duty of research, to do no injury to the teachings of Christian doctrine. For that would be to give rise, as is unfortunately seen in these days, to disturbance and perplexity in many faithful souls.

It is important in this respect to recall that, beyond scientifically verified phenomena, the intellect which God has given us reaches that which is, and not merely the subjective expression of the structures and development of consciousness; and, on the other hand, that the task of interpretation--of hermeneutics--is to try to understand and extricate, while respecting the word expressed, the sense conveyed by a text, and not to recreate, in some fashion, this sense in accordance with arbitrary hypotheses.

Put above all, we place our unshakable confidence in the Holy Spirit, the soul of the Church, and in theological faith upon which rests the life of the Mystical Body. We know that souls await the word of the Vicar of Christ, and we respond to that expectation with the instructions which we regularly give. But today we are given an opportunity to make a more solemn utterance.

On this day which is chosen to close the Year of Faith, on this feast of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, we have wished to offer to the living God the homage of a profession of faith. And as once at Caesarea Philippi the apostle Peter spoke on behalf of the twelve to make a true confession, beyond human opinions, of Christ as Son of the living God, so today his humble successor, pastor of the Universal Church, raises his voice to give, on behalf of all the People of God, a firm witness to the divine Truth entrusted to the Church to be announced to all nations.

We have wished our profession of faith to be to a high degree complete and explicit, in order that it may respond in a fitting way to the need of light felt by so many faithful souls, and by all those in the world, to whatever spiritual family they belong, who are in search of the Truth.

To the glory of God most holy and of our Lord Jesus Christ, trusting in the aid of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of the holy apostles Peter and Paul, for the profit and edification of the Church, in the name of all the pastors and all the faithful, we now pronounce this profession of faith, in full spiritual communion with you all, beloved brothers and sons.

THE CREDO




WE BELIEVE in one only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, creator of things visible such as this world in which our transient life passes, of things invisible such as the pure spirits which are also called angels,[3] and creator in each man of his spiritual and immortal soul.

We believe that this only God is absolutely one in His infinitely holy essence as also in all His perfections, in His omnipotence, His infinite knowledge, His providence, His will and His love. He is He who is, as He revealed to Moses,[4] and He is love, as the apostle John teaches us:[5] so that these two names, being and love, express ineffably the same divine reality of Him who has wished to make Himself known to us, and who, "dwelling in light inaccessible"[6] is in Himself above every name, above every thing and above every created intellect. God alone can give us right and full knowledge of this reality by revealing Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in whose eternal life we are by grace called to share, here below in the obscurity of faith and after death in eternal light. The mutual bonds which eternally constitute the Three Persons, who are each one and the same divine being, are the blessed inmost life of God thrice holy, infinitely beyond all that we can conceive in human measure.[7] We give thanks, however, to the divine goodness that very many believers can testify with us before men to the unity of God, even though they know not the mystery of the most holy Trinity.

We believe then in the Father who eternally begets the Son, in the Son, the Word of God, who is eternally begotten; in the Holy Spirit, the uncreated Person who proceeds from the Father and the Son as their eternal love. Thus in the Three Divine Persons, coaeternae sibi et coaequales,[8] the life and beatitude of God perfectly one superabound and are consummated in the supreme excellence and glory proper to uncreated being, and always "there should be venerated unity in the Trinity and Trinity in the unity."[9]

We believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. He is the Eternal Word, born of the Father before time began, and one in substance with the Father, homoousios to Patri,[10] and through Him all things were made. He was incarnate of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit, and was made man: equal therefore to the Father according to His divinity, and inferior to the Father according to His humanity;[11] and Himself one, not by some impossible confusion of His natures, but by the unity of His person.[12]

He dwelt among us, full of grace and truth. He proclaimed and established the Kingdom of God and made us know in Himself the Father. He gave us His new commandment to love one another as He loved us. He taught us the way of the beatitudes of the Gospel: poverty in spirit, meekness, suffering borne with patience, thirst after justice, mercy, purity of heart, will for peace, persecution suffered for justice sake. Under Pontius Pilate He suffered --the Lamb of God bearing on Himself the sins of the world, and He died for us on the cross, saving us by His redeeming blood. He was buried, and, of His own power, rose on the third day, raising us by His resurrection to that sharing in the divine life which is the life of grace. He ascended to heaven, and He will come again, this time in glory, to judge the living and the dead: each according to his merits--those who have responded to the love and piety of God going to eternal life, those who have refused them to the end going to the fire that is not extinguished.

And His Kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, who is Lord, and Giver of life, who is adored and glorified together with the Father and the Son. He spoke to us by the prophets; He was sent by Christ after His resurrection and His ascension to the Father; He illuminates, vivifies, protects and guides the Church; He purifies the Church's members if they do not shun His grace. His action, which penetrates to the inmost of the soul, enables man to respond to the call of Jesus: Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Mt. 5:48).

We believe that Mary is the Mother, who remained ever a Virgin, of the Incarnate Word, our God and Savior Jesus Christ,[13] and that by reason of this singular election, she was, in consideration of the merits of her Son, redeemed in a more eminent manner,[14] preserved from all stain of original sin[15] and filled with the gift of grace more than all other creatures.[16]

Joined by a close and indissoluble bond to the Mysteries of the Incarnation and Redemption,[17] the Blessed Virgin, the Immaculate, was at the end of her earthly life raised body and soul to heavenly glory[18] and likened to her risen Son in anticipation of the future lot of all the just; and we believe that the Blessed Mother of God, the New Eve, Mother of the Church,[19] continues in heaven her maternal role with regard to Christ's members, cooperating with the birth and growth of divine life in the souls of the redeemed.[20]

We believe that in Adam all have sinned, which means that the original offense committed by him caused human nature, common to all men, to fall to a state in which it bears the consequences of that offense, and which is not the state in which it was at first in our first parents--established as they were in holiness and justice, and in which man knew neither evil nor death. It is human nature so fallen stripped of the grace that clothed it, injured in its own natural powers and subjected to the dominion of death, that is transmitted to all men, and it is in this sense that every man is born in sin. We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin, is transmitted with human nature, "not by imitation, but by propagation" and that it is thus "proper to everyone."[21]

We believe that Our Lord Jesus Christ, by the sacrifice of the cross redeemed us from original sin and all the personal sins committed by each one of us, so that, in accordance with the word of the apostle, "where sin abounded grace did more abound."[22]

We believe in one Baptism instituted by our Lord Jesus Christ for the remission of sins. Baptism should be administered even to little children who have not yet been able to be guilty of any personal sin, in order that, though born deprived of supernatural grace, they may be reborn "of water and the Holy Spirit" to the divine life in Christ Jesus.[23]

We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter. She is the Mystical Body of Christ; at the same time a visible society instituted with hierarchical organs, and a spiritual community; the Church on earth, the pilgrim People of God here below, and the Church filled with heavenly blessings; the germ and the first fruits of the Kingdom of God, through which the work and the sufferings of Redemption are continued throughout human history, and which looks for its perfect accomplishment beyond time in glory.[24] In the course of time, the Lord Jesus forms His Church by means of the sacraments emanating from His plenitude.[25] By these she makes her members participants in the Mystery of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, in the grace of the Holy Spirit who gives her life and movement.[26] She is therefore holy, though she has sinners in her bosom, because she herself has no other life but that of grace: it is by living by her life that her members are sanctified; it is by removing themselves from her life that they fall into sins and disorders that prevent the radiation of her sanctity. This is why she suffers and does penance for these offenses, of which she has the power to heal her children through the blood of Christ and the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Heiress of the divine promises and daughter of Abraham according to the Spirit, through that Israel whose scriptures she lovingly guards, and whose patriarchs and prophets she venerates; founded upon the apostles and handing on from century to century their ever-living word and their powers as pastors in the successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him; perpetually assisted by the Holy Spirit, she has the charge of guarding, teaching, explaining and spreading the Truth which God revealed in a then veiled manner by the prophets, and fully by the Lord Jesus. We believe all that is contained in the word of God written or handed down, and that the Church proposes for belief as divinely revealed, whether by a solemn judgment or by the ordinary and universal magisterium.[27] We believe in the infallibility enjoyed by the successor of Peter when he teaches ex cathedra as pastor and teacher of all the faithful,[28] and which is assured also to the episcopal body when it exercises with him the supreme magisterium.[29]

We believe that the Church founded by Jesus Christ and for which He prayed is indefectibly one in faith, worship and the bond of hierarchical communion. In the bosom of this Church, the rich variety of liturgical rites and the legitimate diversity of theological and spiritual heritages and special disciplines, far from injuring her unity, make it more manifest.[30]

Recognizing also the existence, outside the organism of the Church of Christ of numerous elements of truth and sanctification which belong to her as her own and tend to Catholic unity,[31] and believing in the action of the Holy Spirit who stirs up in the heart of the disciples of Christ love of this unity,[32] we entertain the hope that the Christians who are not yet in the full communion of the one only Church will one day be reunited in one flock with one only shepherd.

We believe that the Church is necessary for salvation, because Christ, who is the sole mediator and way of salvation, renders Himself present for us in His body which is the Church.[33] But the divine design of salvation embraces all men, and those who without fault on their part do not know the Gospel of Christ and His Church, but seek God sincerely, and under the influence of grace endeavor to do His will as recognized through the promptings of their conscience, they, in a number known only to God, can obtain salvation.[34]

We believe that the Mass, celebrated by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true, real and substantial presence.[35]

Christ cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called by the Church transubstantiation. Every theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before us under the sacramental species of bread and wine,[36] as the Lord willed it, in order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His Mystical Body.[37]

The unique and indivisible existence of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made present before us.

We confess that the Kingdom of God begun here below in the Church of Christ is not of this world whose form is passing, and that its proper growth cannot be confounded with the progress of civilization, of science or of human technology, but that it consists in an ever more profound knowledge of the unfathomable riches of Christ, an ever stronger hope in eternal blessings, an ever more ardent response to the love of God, and an ever more generous bestowal of grace and holiness among men. But it is this same love which induces the Church to concern herself constantly about the true temporal welfare of men. Without ceasing to recall to her children that they have not here a lasting dwelling, she also urges them to contribute, each according to his vocation and his means, to the welfare of their earthly city, to promote justice, peace and brotherhood among men, to give their aid freely to their brothers, especially to the poorest and most unfortunate. The deep solicitude of the Church, the Spouse of Christ, for the needs of men, for their joys and hopes, their griefs and efforts, is therefore nothing other than her great desire to be present to them, in order to illuminate them with the light of Christ and to gather them all in Him, their only Savior. This solicitude can never mean that the Church conform herself to the things of this world, or that she lessen the ardor of her expectation of her Lord and of the eternal Kingdom.

We believe in the life eternal. We believe that the souls of all those who die in the grace of Christ--whether they must still be purified in purgatory, or whether from the moment they leave their bodies Jesus takes them to paradise as He did for the Good Thief--are the People of God in the eternity beyond death, which will be finally conquered on the day of the Resurrection when these souls will be reunited with their bodies.

We believe that the multitude of those gathered around Jesus and Mary in paradise forms the Church of Heaven, where in eternal beatitude they see God as He is,[38] and where they also, in different degrees, are associated with the holy angels in the divine rule exercised by Christ in glory, interceding for us and helping our weakness by their brotherly care.[39]

We believe in the communion of all the faithful of Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are attaining their purification, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this communion the merciful love of God and His saints is ever listening to our prayers, as Jesus told us: Ask and you will receive.[40] Thus it is with faith and in hope that we look forward to the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come.

Blessed be God Thrice Holy. Amen.


22 posted on 05/27/2004 3:06:06 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Even under the most wicked of Popes, Rome was never fully un-Catholic.

There are Catholic laity and clerics who are still left in Rome. The traditional order of priests, the Mater Boni Consilii, are one example.

As for those who knowingly, publically and pertinaciously profess heresy, e.g. the heretical doctrines of "Vatican II", especially by those who purport to possess authroity, they are no longer Catholic and hence possess no authority.

As for previous popes who were "not quite up to snuff", whatever there other deficiencies, especially moral ones, they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII.

23 posted on 05/27/2004 3:13:18 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
"No longer fully Catholic" is reminiscent of "slightly pregnant".

LOL

24 posted on 05/27/2004 3:26:05 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
As for previous popes who were "not quite up to snuff", whatever there other deficiencies, especially moral ones, they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII.

Why do you slander Blessed John XXIII? You have provided no proof of notorious heresy on his part - because there is none. Why didn't Card. Ottaviani or Abp. Lefebvre (or anyone!) notice the notorious heresy? Now there's a contradiction - a notorious heresy that no one knew about!

25 posted on 05/27/2004 3:28:54 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena
If Uncle Walt has his way Rome will abandon support of Russian Catholics. It is shameful.

C_of_D
anti-modernist and therefore, schismatic.

26 posted on 05/27/2004 3:29:59 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
anti-modernist and therefore, schismatic.
He [Cardinal Hoyos] then said, "But we want you to fight Modernism, Liberalism and Masonry in the Church!" (Bishop Fellay, Interview in Latin Mass Magazine)

27 posted on 05/27/2004 3:32:36 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

your point?


28 posted on 05/27/2004 3:34:09 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
There are Catholic laity and clerics who are still left in Rome. The traditional order of priests, the Mater Boni Consilii, are one example.

The Mater Boni Consilii are not Catholic, but sedevacantist heretics and schismatics.

You still have to explain away the acceptance of the Novus Ordo Missae by the Roman Church in 1970, before sedevacantism existed - a fact which demonstrates the Novus Ordo is a Catholic rite and not contrary to any divine law, for the Church of the City of Rome cannot fall into error, as was defined by Pope Sixtus IV and taught by St. Bellarmine, Hosius, John Driedo, and St. Cyprian.

As for those who knowingly, publically and pertinaciously profess heresy, e.g. the heretical doctrines of "Vatican II", especially by those who purport to possess authroity, they are no longer Catholic and hence possess no authority.

What heretical doctrines of the Second Vatican Council would these be? Religious liberty is not contrary even to Quanta cura, much less other teachings of the ordinary magisterium, and is implied in Pius XII's address Ci Riesce.

they were still Catholic because there was never an example of formal papal heresy until after the death of Pope Pius XII

John XXII was far more a heretic than Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI were. You'd be better off getting rid of him, too. After all, he taught some rather inconvenient doctrines for those who consider "Quo Primum" inviolate and irreformable.

Quod autem, quod in ratione praedicta praemittitur, videlicet, quod illa, quae per clavem scientiae in fide ac moribus a summis Pontificibus semel sunt diffinita, eorum successoribus revocare non licet in dubium, nec contrarium affirmare, licet secus sit (sicut dicunt) in iis, quae per clavem potestatis per summos Pontifices ordinantur, prorsus sit contrarium veritati, patet ex sequentibus evidenter. (John XXII, Quia quorundam)

29 posted on 05/27/2004 3:49:33 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

anti-modernists are not schismatic.


30 posted on 05/27/2004 3:50:02 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj; Hermann the Cherusker
Nine Ways of Being Accesory to Another's Sin

1. By counsel.

2. By command.

3. By consent.

4.By provocation.

5. By praise or flattery.

6. By concealment.

7. By partaking.

8. By silence.

9. By defense of the ill done.

You each purport to be Catholic, even asserting to be conservative, yet do everything possible to deny the apostasy being committed against Our Lord, His Church, and the Holy Faith.

When cornered you have admitted the heresy by the antipope Karol Wojtyla but have made weak and weary and wrong excuses such as a bishop must declare it to be so (gbcdoj).

Hermann, your recent espousal on another thread to eschew spiritual purity, or even the basics of physical comity, in the reception of the Most Sacred Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ as being "over-scrupulous", is especially despicable - even more so the attempt to turn your blasphemy back against others who accused you.

You both have repeatedly, in the face of correction, assaulted the basic tenets of the Faith, twisted the words of others attempting to hold the Faith whole and entire, and generally spew forth the deceptive half-truths of the "father of lies".

You should either openly admit that is him that you serve alone, or repent completely, forswear forever, and publically admit your previous partaking of heresy to all.

If not, I'd advise packing at least SPF 10,000 - not that it will do you a bit of good.

John Paul II giving "communion in the hand".

John Paul II with the Trilateral Commission (Apr. 18, 1983).

John Paul II with the B'nai B'rith (Mar. 22, 1984).

John Paul II at the Roman synagogue (Apr. 13, 1986).

John Paul II with heretics, schismatics and pagans at Assisi (Oct. 27, 1986).

Small statue of Buddha on an altar at Assisi.

Zoom-in on tabernacle area of previous photo.

John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak".

John Paul II at "Mass" in Papua, New Guinea (May 8, 1984) where the epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman.

John Paul II Kissing the Koran

31 posted on 05/27/2004 3:53:05 PM PDT by Viva Christo Rey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

"He [Cardinal Hoyos] then said, "But we want you to fight Modernism, Liberalism and Masonry in the Church!" (Bishop Fellay, Interview in Latin Mass Magazine)"

Isn't it interesting that Cardinal Hoyos would turn to the SSPX with this request? Do you think His Eminence might distrust the likes of Kasper, Lehmann, Mahony, Sodano, Re etc etc etc. to accomplish this task?
Oops, we wouldn't want to be too critical now - unless of course we're pointing out problems with previous popes - not Pope John Paul "the Great", nor those hand-piecked for his sacred college of cardinals.


32 posted on 05/27/2004 4:03:45 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

"anti-modernists are not schismatic"

You certainly make sense sometimes.


33 posted on 05/27/2004 4:10:43 PM PDT by AskStPhilomena
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey
John Paul II giving "communion in the hand".

Communion on the hand is an ecclesiastical tradition, since it was the practice of the early Church as attested to by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Basil. It is not at all heretical, as you would know if you had a clue about Catholic theology and even the most elementary church history.

It is needless to point out that for anyone in times of persecution to be compelled to take the communion in his own hand without the presence of a priest or minister is not a serious offence, as long custom sanctions this practice from the facts themselves.  All the solitaries in the desert, where there is no priest, take the communion themselves, keeping communion at home.  And at Alexandria and in Egypt, each one of the laity, for the most part, keeps the communion, at his own house, and participates in it when he likes.  For when once the priest has completed the offering, and given it, the recipient, participating in it each time as entire, is bound to believe that he properly takes and receives it from the giver.  And even in the church, when the priest gives the portion, the recipient takes it with complete power over it, and so lifts it to his lips with his own hand.  It has the same validity whether one portion or several portions are received from the priest at the same time. (St. Basil the Great, Letter 93)

John Paul II being anointed with the pagan "Sign of the Tilak".

This has already been refuted many times. Don't slander the Pope - you know perfectly well it is no such thing.

John Paul II at "Mass" in Papua, New Guinea (May 8, 1984) where the epistle is read by a bare-breasted woman.

Even if we were to grant that this was scandalous, sinful, etc. (something I do not), it is not heretical. Unless Kerry's "Pope Pius XXIII" has defined recently the dogma that "having a bare-breasted woman read the Epistle is heretical".

Why not answer my question - where is the pertinacious heresy of Blessed John XXIII or Paul VI? Instead you show pictures of John Paul II - totally aside from the discussion of your slander of Bl. John XXIII and Paul VI. Either show what dogmas they notoriously rejected or stop calumniating them. How about it? A good start would be explaining how the "heretic" Paul VI managed to pronounce the totally orthodox Credo I have posted here. Perhaps he was a hidden heretic, pretending to be orthodox? LOL

34 posted on 05/27/2004 4:30:19 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: dangus

For what? What are you talking about?


35 posted on 05/27/2004 4:37:23 PM PDT by broadsword (Liberalism is the societal AIDS virus that helps Islam to wage war against human civilization.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena; gbcdoj
anti-modernists are not schismatic"

You certainly make sense sometimes

baby steps, baby steps.

36 posted on 05/27/2004 4:45:29 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Viva Christo Rey

Disagree. The Vatican institution is comprised of loyal Catholics as well as apostates. It is not clear the Pope is in charge. So the situation is unclear.


37 posted on 05/27/2004 5:22:30 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

There is clearly a disconnect between what's going on under the aegis of the present Vatican apparatus and formal pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Allowing Hindu priests to use Catholic auspices to pray to pagan gods is clearly not Catholic--and not all the citations from past councils and popes in the world can squeeze this square peg into a round hole.

By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS." You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.

Moreover, you are again deceiving others by quoting the passage on schism which cannot possibly refer to Archbishop Lefebvre. In fact, the Pope showed his intolerance for Catholic Tradition by asserting a schism had occurred that hadn't. He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular. For this we should give thanks--and judge this Pope as he deserves to be judged--as someone who has done and is still doing great damage to the Church.

John Paul II is probably a material heretic. That does not mean he is a formal heretic--which would mean the chair of Peter is vacant--but it does mean he should not be followed in his radical ecumenism which is syncretic and indifferentist--offenses condemned by preconciliar pontiffs. This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic. This is heretical and should be resisted by all genuine Catholics.


38 posted on 05/27/2004 5:51:58 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Posting nonsense again I see. Here is Brian Harrison's rebuttal of the heretical views of Cardinal Kasper, whom JPII saw fit to elevate to the princedom of the Catholic Church not too long ago. (Why hold a little bit of heresy against him?) This is taken from "Fr. Eamon Bredin and the Resurrection," Living Tradition, September 1988:

______________________________________________________

Our author goes on to quote with approval Walter Kasper, who maintains that although Mark's tomb story is older and less "legendary" than the others, "It is clear that in its present form at any rate, it is in no way a historical account." 29 If Mark's account, and therefore the more "legendary" ones as well, are "in no way" historical, that means they are substantially non-historical. Fr. Kasper's reasons for saying this appear ostensibly to be largely literary ones. As quoted by Fr. Bredin, he says that in Mark's empty tomb narrative,

"We are faced not with historical details but with stylistic devices intended to attract the attention and raise excitement in the minds of those listening. Everything is clearly constructed to lead very skilfully to the climax of the angel's words: 'He is risen, he is not here; see the place where they laid him'" (16:6). 30

For the substantial non-historicity of the "tomb stories," then, we have been offered only two pieces of "evidence," namely, the (supposed) incompatibility of the details in the respective Gospel accounts, and the alleged literary skill of Mark in presenting his account. But this is completely unconvincing. If several witnesses write an account of some dramatic event - say, a fire in a large building - some years after it took place, we will almost certainly find some discrepancies of detail - differences, for instance, as to what time it broke out, how long it took to be extinguished, how many people were seen to jump from its windows, and so on. But what serious historian would take this as evidence that the reports were "in no way historical," and that perhaps the fire never took place at all?

Likewise, the argument from literary style proves nothing at all. Even if Mark had written his account even more "skilfully" - in the form of exquisite poetic verses, let us say - that would not be an argument against its historicity. Gerard Manley Hopkins, for example, wrote a very moving poem, "The Wreck of the 'Deutschland,'" after reading in a newspaper an eyewitness account of this real-life shipwreck. He kept to the essential facts, even while expressing them in a creative and imaginative way. Any critic who argued from the mere fact of the poetic literary form adopted by Hopkins to the non-historicity of what he describes would of course be deceiving himself. Moreover, one suspects that in the case of Kasper's argument from the absence of conventional historical form to non-historical content in the Gospel "tomb stories" there is an additional fallacy - that of begging the question. What evidence does Fr. Kasper offer for his claim that the form of these stories is not in fact that of conventional historical writing or fact-reporting, but rather, that of "a narrative intended as the basis for a cultic ceremony"? 31 One would want to ask Fr. Kasper, "Supposing the women did in fact go to the tomb on the first day of the week, find it empty, and meet an angel who told them that Christ had risen from the dead; how in that case would a normal first-century historical form of reporting these extraordinary events differ significantly from the form which we in fact find in Mark's canonical account?" One suspects that no convincing answer at all would be forthcoming; certainly, Fr. Kasper himself offers none. This in turn strongly reinforces one's suspicion that Kasper's appeal to style and form is only a smokescreen: he seems to have judged the form of these stories to be non-historical simply because of their content; that is, because of what they say rather than how they say it. Thus, Fr. Kasper feels entitled to call Mark's mention of the angel a "stylistic device," not because of the way the evangelist talks about the angel, but simply because he talks about it at all. Angels as such are to be understood as a "stylistic device."

In short, we are told that the content is not historical because the form is not historical (which in itself would be a non-sequitur), only to find out that the reason for judging the form to be in fact non-historical is its (self-evidently) non-historical content - angels appearing and bodies being raised to life.

The exegetical arguments offered here for "non-historicity" are in themselves so transparently flimsy, as we have seen, that we doubt they could convince men as intelligent as Kasper and Bredin unless bolstered up by some powerful "hidden persuader," such as a philosophical world view which excludes direct or miraculous actions of God in the physical order as outside the realm of the possible or credible. But, as Pope John Paul II affirmed in a recent catechetical address, such a world view "clashes with the most elementary philosophical and theological idea of God." 32 Disbelief in miracles (in the true and proper sense of sense-perceptible events which cannot be explained by secondary, natural causes) is thus radically incompatible with Christian faith. 33 Yet this indeed seems to be very close to the world view of Fr. Kasper as recently, at least, as the mid-seventies. 34 He then wrote of the theological "task of coming to terms with the modern understanding of reality as represented primarily by the natural sciences" (as if there were only one such "modern understanding"). 35 Kasper continues:

"The premiss of the scientific approach is a wholly law-bound determination of all events. ... In scientific theory there is no room for a miracle in the sense of an event with no physical cause and therefore no definable origin." 36

That Fr. Kasper is confusing this particular philosophical position with real science - in the sense of certain and true knowledge which "modern" man just has to accept - becomes clear a little further on, when he tells us that any "miraculous" event

"always comes about through the action of created secondary causes. A divine intervention in the sense of a directly visible action of God is theological nonsense." 37

On the contrary: it is precisely this opinion of Fr. Kasper - which amongst other things would presumably rule out such "directly visible actions of God" as the raising of a dead body and a virginal conception - that seems like theological (and philosophical) nonsense. Why should the One who created the material universe from nothing find it impossible or unseemly to work further marvels?


39 posted on 05/27/2004 6:05:17 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Viva Christo Rey defends the faith--which is more than you do who genuflect to every abomination spawned by this heterodox pope. Viva is doing what any sound Catholic should do--tell Rome to go shove it, when they come up with deceits and heresies in an attempt to have the faithful follow them into heresy. That goes double for the indefensible Kasper. If he is sedevacantist, it is no wonder, given the outrages that have come out of Rome on a steady basis.


40 posted on 05/27/2004 6:13:51 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: AskStPhilomena; ultima ratio; Canticle_of_Deborah; gbcdoj
"anti-modernists are not schismatic"

Archbishop Lefebvre was declared automatically "excommunicated" and schismatic by a modernist Pope. The good Archbishop's crime? Fearing his imminent death, he consecrated bishops to continue the formation and ordination of anti-modernist priests.

Rome had previously agreed, but then delayed, repeatedly, the promised consecration.

It was all planned: wait the good Archbishop out until he died, or declare him "excommunicated" if he performed the consecrations, even if it was from his death-bed. It was a win-win situation for modernist "Rome" and a lose-lose situation for traditional Catholics.

41 posted on 05/27/2004 6:22:29 PM PDT by Land of the Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
There is clearly a disconnect between what's going on under the aegis of the present Vatican apparatus and formal pronouncements of the Catholic Church. Allowing Hindu priests to use Catholic auspices to pray to pagan gods is clearly not Catholic--and not all the citations from past councils and popes in the world can squeeze this square peg into a round hole.

Popes and cardinals sin, that is no surprise! But the Holy See was still fully Catholic when Alexander VI presided in Peter's chair.

By the way, I notice you don't use bold fonts to highlight the exception pronounced by Pius IX: "SO ONLY IT DOES NOT TOUCH THE DOMATA OF FAITH AND MORALS."

That differentiates disciplinary pronouncement from dogmatic pronouncements on faith and morals. That's not an "exception" of Bl. Pius IX, but one invented by the liberals to try to get out of the disciplinary authority of the Church.

You might also have quoted his famous admonition that when a pope does not teach Catholic doctrine, we should not follow him.

You mean this statement: "If a future pope teaches anything contrary to the Catholic Faith, do not follow him", ripped from the context of a letter? The Pope doesn't teach anything contrary to the Catholic faith, so there is no worry there. (Only defined dogmas are de fide Catholica)

He did so in a letter--not formally--and said so wrongly, since no member of SSPX has ever denied papal authority--though the SSPX DID deny that this Pope was orthodox and it DID defend against his heterodox assault on Catholic Tradition and the ancient Mass in particular.

Why do you lie about the Holy Father? He has not assaulted the ancient Mass. If he were truly heterodox as you assert, he would have simply suppressed all the ancient rites, instead of encouraging the Eastern churches to hold to their traditions and establishing the FSSP as a society of Pontifical Right.

And "Ecclesia Dei" is not just a "letter", but an Apostolic Letter given motu proprio, one which enjoys the his supreme apostolic authority. He explicitly states:

In itself, this act was one of disobedience to the Roman Pontiff in a very grave matter and of supreme importance for the unity of the church, such as is the ordination of bishops whereby the apostolic succession is sacramentally perpetuated. Hence such disobedience - which implies in practice the rejection of the Roman primacy - constitutes a schismatic act.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 751.] In performing such an act, notwithstanding the formal canonical warning sent to them by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Bishops on 17 June last, Mons. Lefebvre and the priests Bernard Fellay, Bernard Tissier de Mallerais, Richard Williamson and Alfonso de Galarreta, have incurred the grave penalty of excommunication envisaged by ecclesiastical law.[Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 1382.]

He declares that it was a schismatic act and that they are schismatics.

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. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra)

This pontificate is pushing an agenda that has nothing whatever to do with Catholicism or the salvation of souls and is an attempt to establish a new pan-religion by means of the destruction of whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic.

LOL! This is just nonsense. If the Pope wanted to destroy "whatever is specifically and uniquely Catholic", it would be obvious. 25 years and his "reformation" still hasn't made itself known? These must be part of the attempt to establish a "pan-religion" by the destruction of whatever is "uniquely Catholic":

Those look just like ecumenical pan-religious documents. One can see the spirit of the "Future of God" conference in Fatima in them!

42 posted on 05/27/2004 6:23:32 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Land of the Irish

Lefebvre refused to give dossiers on bishops to Ratzinger. The consecration was to be August 15, but Lefebvre refused to offer new, Catholic candidates, even though he stated in a letter that he knew various traditionalists that would be accepted by the Pope as the bishop.

For instance, he stated that "The Traditional Benedictine Prior" Dom Gerard Calvet would be accepted. Dom Gerard knew that Lefebvre's consecrations were schismatic and left - but he still says even today that the New Mass is inferior and doesn't clearly express Catholic dogma, all while in communion with Rome and having his priests ordained.

Your theory is also disproved by the very fact that today the Pope is still willing to allow the Society to return to the Church without having to disavow its errors. It is the Society which stays purposefully outside, because the Pope refused to grant the "universal indult":


His Excellency Bishop Bernard Fellay: It was February 12,2001. Cardinal Hoyos said, "Listen, we have a problem. The problem is this permission for the Mass. The Pope agrees to say that the old Mass has never been abrogated and that it is legitimate to offer it. Cardinals Ratzinger, Medina and Sodano all agree. But their secretaries and under-secretaries do not agree. Therefore, we cannot say what you want. Instead, we will say that every priest and every group of faithful who wants the old Mass will have the ability to ask permission from a new commission that will oversee the concerns of the traditionalists." I replied, "Well, that's Ecclesia Dei II!" When the Cardinal relayed this information, I said, "That's it. They don't care about the problem."


This is on top of the statement in the Protocol that any bishop in the entire world could ordain the society's priests.

In any case, Lefebvre's bishops lack formal apostolic succession, which is given by the Pope. He made four bishops who are only material and not formal Successors of the Apostles - schismatic, non-Catholic bishops.


43 posted on 05/27/2004 6:34:21 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

That says nothing about denying the Resurrection - just that Kasper considers the tomb stories unhistorical.

It is Fr. Harrison who argues that Kasper's premises lead to the denial of the resurrection and virgin birth - he doesn't cite Kasper on that because Kasper affirms the resurrection and virgin birth in this book!


44 posted on 05/27/2004 6:37:18 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

Reread the piece. Kasper denies miracles happen. That includes the Resurrection. The whole tenor of the Harrison piece concerns the Resurrection and its denial by Bredin and Kasper.


45 posted on 05/27/2004 6:42:48 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

This is not mere sinfulness--it's heresy. Try again--this time with your blinders off.


46 posted on 05/27/2004 6:44:47 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gbcdoj

This Pope teaches syncretism and indifferentism--not in writing, never on paper--but in what he does. That is the scheme--to little by little change the Church and the way Catholics believe by DOING what clearly undermines the faith. His example is bad--and should not be followed.


47 posted on 05/27/2004 6:49:33 PM PDT by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio; sitetest
Kasper denies miracles happen. That includes the Resurrection. The whole tenor of the Harrison piece concerns the Resurrection and its denial by Bredin and Kasper.

Avery Dulles clearly states that Kasper treats of and affirms the Virgin Birth and the Resurrection. Also sitetest has told me he has read the book and not found it heretical - something impossible if he truly denied the resurrection and divinity of Our Lord as you have falsely claimed.

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.

48 posted on 05/27/2004 6:57:30 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio

That's not the 'scheme' at all. Actually, the Pope is a sinner like all of us. But his teaching is perfectly orthodox as you know.


49 posted on 05/27/2004 6:59:31 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
This is not mere sinfulness--it's heresy. Try again--this time with your blinders off.

The Pope's failure to discipline the rector of the shrine is an error in judgment. It has nothing to do with heresy, as can be clearly shown from his Catechism which condemns the worship of false gods.

50 posted on 05/27/2004 7:01:33 PM PDT by gbcdoj (in mundo pressuram habetis, sed confidite, ego vici mundum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-114 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson