Posted on 05/27/2004 10:22:01 AM PDT by Land of the Irish
Fatima ping
According to the broadcast, a busload of Hindus were allowed to commandeer the sanctuary inside the Fatima Capelinha and to use the Catholic altar for their rituals. The SIC newscaster said, “This is an unprecedented unique moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, prays on the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace.”
Does anyone still believe this is a hoax concocted by extreme "anti-ecumenical" traditionalists, who somehow have Portugese television stations and newspapers in on their sinister "Church bashing"?
I have no doubt our little apostate will claim this is all lies. It will not matter that this information is coming from the general media. It matters not to those in a "sinkhole" of denial how much evidence you post. They will see it when they believe it and even then the question will be "what is wrong with that?" They will spurt out their hard words about how you are wrong for expecting respect for a Christian shrine. They will "spur" on others to think ill of you.
Worry not I've read the Book, they lose.
Thanks for posting yet another thorough exposee of the fraud which passes for ecumenism today.
Although there are plenty of good points to ponder in this interesting article by John Vennari (a Catholic journalist par excellence), of particular alarm was the following:
"The French Freemason Yves Marsaudon wrote approvingly: “One can say that ecumenism is the legitimate son of Freemasonry ... In our times, our brother Franklin Roosevelt claimed for all of them the possibility of ‘adoring God, following their principles and their convictions.’ This is tolerance, and it is also ecumenism. We traditional Freemasons allow ourselves to paraphrase and transpose this saying of a celebrated statesman, adapting it to circumstances: Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Israelites, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, freethinkers, free-believers, to us, these are only first names; Freemasonry is the name of our family.”"
Do you think there's any link between freemasonry and the current ecumaniac agenda of modernist Catholics?
When a modernist bishop holds his inauguration parties at a masonic shrine, it sometimes makes me wonder...
http://www.rcf.org/docs/bishop_lucas01.htm
"Father, have mercy on them for they know not what they do"
Or do they???
This can't be. I read right here on this site that the Fatima travesty is really a traditionalist conspiracy to bash the Pope and Living Magisterium.
I know little about freemasonry except for what I read in history and on this site. Recently, I was informed by an actual freemason that the goal of freemasonry is remove all offensive elements of religion. That is the closest present day admission I know of which explains the modernism in the Church.
What happened to "unity in diversity"?
Aren't you being disobedient to His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper, sacred prince of the Church?
Why yes, yes I am. I am one of those wicked "schismatics" who refuses to deny the Resurrection.
Yes, I do.
Does anyone doubt Rome is no longer fully Catholic? This is heresy--and attributable to the Vatican. Anyone on this site still believe Lefebvre was wrong and this Pontiff was right?
His Eminence Kasper does not deny the Resurrection. Stop slandering him - certainly there's enough to criticize without making stuff up.
In compact style, Kasper handles practically all the standard Christological questions, such as the pre-existence of the Son, the hypostatic union (one person in two natures), the virginal conception, the freedom and sinlessness of Jesus, his Messianic claims and titles, his miracles, and his resurrection. Refusing to separate Christology from soteriology, Kasper likewise treats the redemptive character of Jesus's sacrificial death. On all these points, Kasper stands with the ancient councils and with the mainstream of the theological tradition. (Avery Dulles, review of Kasper's 1977 Jesus the Christ)
So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion (First Vatican Council, Pastor aeternus, cap. 4 §2)
Anyone on this site still believe Lefebvre was wrong and this Pontiff was right?
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that "without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church's general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals." But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quanta Cura)
For this reason John, Bishop of Constantinople, solemnly declared-and the entire Eighth Ecumenical Council did so later—"that the names of those who were separated from communion with the Catholic Church, that is of those who did not agree in all matters with the Apostolic See, are not to be read out during the sacred mysteries." This plainly meant that they did not recognize those men as true Catholics. All these traditions dictate that whoever the Roman Pontiff judges to be a schismatic for not expressly admitting and reverencing his power must stop calling himself Catholic.Since this does not please the neo-schismatics, they follow the example of heretics of more recent times. They argue that the sentence of schism and excommunication pronounced against them by the Archbishop of Tyana, the Apostolic Delegate in Constantinople, was unjust, and consequently void of strength and influence. They have claimed also that they are unable to accept the sentence because the faithful might desert to the heretics if deprived of their ministration. These novel arguments were wholly unknown and unheard of by the ancient Fathers of the Church. (Bl. Pius IX, Quartus Supra §9-10)
We therefore severely forbid the said Expilly and the other wickedly elected and illicitly consecrated men, under this punishment of suspension, to assume episcopal jurisdiction or any other authority for the guidance of souls since they have never received it. They must not grant dimissorial letters for ordinations. Nor must they appoint, depute, or confirm pastors, vicars, missionaries, helpers, functionaries, ministers, or others, whatever their title, for the care of souls and the administration of the Sacraments under any pretext of necessity whatsoever. Nor may they otherwise act, decree, or decide, whether separately or united as a council, on matters which relate to ecclesiastical jurisdiction. For We declare and proclaim publicly that all their dimissorial letters and deputations or confirmations, past and future, as well as all their rash proceedings and their consequences, are utterly void and without force. (Pius VI, Charitas §24)
I suppose you're also the type who obstinately refuse to "cease and desist immediately" from attempts to convert the Russian Orthodox to the one, true Faith?
To learn about the serious harm you may be causing (“a scandal to the eyes of the world”), I suggest you carefully reflect on His Eminence Walter Cardinal Kasper's "code of behavior":
http://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/049bev3-08-2004.htm
"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.
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.
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!
O for crying out loud, ping Sinkspur already.
>> "No longer fully Catholic" is reminiscent of "slightly pregnant". <<
Nonsense. There can be many in Rome who are apostate, while the Pope is merely an imprefect adminsitrator who has failed to weed out heresy. Even under the most wicked of Popes, Rome was never fully un-Catholic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.