Posted on 11/25/2004 3:59:20 PM PST by AskStPhilomena
Back in October of 2003, Fr. Nicholas Gruner and the Fatima Center sounded the alarm about an "inter-religious" conference held at the Fatima Shrine in Portugal, hosted by the Shrine’s rector, Msgr. Luciano Guerra. Based on Guerra’s statements related to this conference, Fr. Gruner warned that the Shrine was being prepared for transformation into an "inter-religious" center.
Alarmism! Hysteria!, declared the Enlightened Ones — the same crowd (Fr. Fox, EWTN, et al) that has been celebrating the non-existent "consecration of Russia" in 1984, while it ignores the subjugation of the Russian people by Vladimir Putin and the ever-worsening moral and spiritual condition of Russian society.
And then — also at Guerra’s invitation — came the Hindu ceremony in the Little Chapel of the Apparitions on May 5, 2004, on the very spot where Our Lady of Fatima appeared in 1917. When Fr. Gruner led an international protest against this sacrilege, the Enlightened Ones leaped to Guerra’s defense: Exaggerations! Lies!, they declared. Nothing untoward had happened in the Little Chapel, they insisted. There was no Hindu ceremony, they claimed, just a harmless "prayer for peace."
But once again the Enlightened Ones have a great quantity of egg on their faces. On November 4, 2004 The Universe, the United Kingdom’s largest-circulation Catholic newspaper, reported that "Clergy at the Marian shrine of Fatima in Portugal may be under investigation by the Vatican after it was revealed that they allowed a Hindu ceremony to take place at the shrine’s altar." The article further reports that "Universe sources in Rome have discovered that the Vatican is considering, and indeed may already have sent, an apostolic visitor to Fatima, after expressing ‘a certain bewilderment’ about the recent interfaith events, which it described as ‘imprudent’."
In the face of this development, Guerra — who had defended his actions to the hilt — is suddenly very contrite. According to The Universe "Guerra … admitted that the recent inter-religious events at the shrine had ‘caused some discomfort in conservative Catholic sectors.’" And what is Guerra, then — a liberal Catholic? Of course he is. The Universe goes on to note that "the controversy first erupted last October when the Bishop of Fatima, Serafim Ferreira e Silva, and Monsignor Guerra hosted an ecumenical conference at the Shrine. The conference, which featured participants from diverse religious bodies, including Buddhists, Muslims and African animists, was followed by reports of a plan to transform the Fatima Shrine into an ‘interfaith facility.’"
Suddenly, Fr. Gruner’s "hysterical" claim is being taken seriously, as is his effort to protest the goings-on at Fatima: "The US-based Fatima Centre organised a series of mass protests, culminating in an open letter of protest to Pope John Paul II and the bishops of Portugal, which was published in a number of major Portuguese newspapers. Tens of thousands of signatures from outraged Catholics were also gathered via the internet."
Moreover, The Universe itself now reports the controversy this way: "Events took a further turn for the worse in May this year when Msgr. Guerra permitted a group of Hindu worshippers from Lisbon to perform a pagan ceremony on the altar of the chapel of Our Lady on the very spot where the Virgin Mary appeared between May and October 1917." What will the Enlightened Ones say about this reportage by The Universe, which accepts as fact the very claim Fr. Gruner made after the event took place? Is The Universe publishing lies and exaggerations?
And now the clincher: The Universe reports that after his press conference concerning the Vatican investigation of his actions, "Guerra admitted that the Hindu ceremony ‘was a little beyond his control’, and promised that he would never again permit a visit of the Hindu group ‘in the same manner’." So, folks, Guerra promises he’ll never do it again — even though the Enlightened Ones had insisted that Guerra had not done anything wrong in the first place.
Once again the Enlightened Ones are proven wrong. Once again, when all the evidence is in, we find that Father Gruner was right. Meanwhile, reports The Universe, "Several sources in Rome say that they believed that an apostolic visitor has already left Rome for Fatima." Let us hope and pray that Msgr. Guerra will soon be leaving Fatima for Rome, where he will receive a new assignment having nothing to do with the Fatima Shrine whose sacred ground he has defiled by his actions.
It sounds as though the rector received some discipline for the Hindu thing, which I think shocked most of us here when we saw the pictures. Does that mean you'll be coming back to the Catholic Church now, or would that deprive you too much of the pleasure of thumbing your nose at the Holy Father who you love to ridicule?
I only ridicule the ridiculous.
Ecumania, as promoted by the current pope, is ridiculous - except that it's gone beyond a joke.
"Does that mean you'll be coming back to the Catholic Church now"
I never left - it's the Church that moved left.
LOL. The Church goes out of it's way to tell those who are really in schism and those who were never in it, that there's no need to come back because their faiths are legitimate paths to salvation. So for Newchurch, what's the worry about schism, if schism is a good thing? Further evidence that the "church" left you.
What I have said above, however, does not justify the relativistic position of those who maintain that a way of salvation can be found in any religion, even independently of faith in Christ the Redeemer, and that interreligious dialogue must be based on this ambiguous idea. That solution to the problem of the salvation of those who do not profess the Christian creed is not in conformity with the Gospel. Rather, we must maintain that the way of salvation always passes through Christ, and therefore the Church and her missionaries have the task of making him known and loved in every time, place and culture. Apart from Christ "there is no salvation" ... Since Christ brings about salvation through his Mystical Body, which is the Church, the way of salvation is connected essentially with the Church. The axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus—"outside the Church there is no salvation"—stated by St. Cyprian (Epist. 73, 21; PL 1123 AB), belongs to the Christian tradition and was included in the Fourth Lateran Council (DS 802), in the Bull Unam sanctam of Boniface VIII (DS 870) and in the Council of Florence (Decretum pro jacobitis, DS 1351). (John Paul II, General Audience, 31 May 1995)
6. It must be firmly believed that the Church is sign and instrument of salvation for all people. It is contrary to the Catholic faith to consider the different religions of the world as ways of salvation complementary to the Church.7. According to Catholic doctrine, the followers of other religions are oriented to the Church and are all called to become part of her. (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the book Toward a Christian Theology of Religious Pluralism by Fr. Jacques Dupuis, S.J.)
I quoted JP II in 1995 and a CDF document from 2001. The Balamand Statement was published by a commission and has not been approved by the Church.
As rapidy as the church changes her teachings, that's light years from where we are now.
The Balamand Statement was published by a commission and has not been approved by the Church.
But like the vatican II Church, it hasn't been repudiated - they love for the lies to just hang out there for decades to sow confusion.
Balamand Statement was in 1993. Apparently, according to you, the teachings have become traditional again.
like the vatican II Church, it hasn't been repudiated
Fr Tissa Balasuriya was excommunicated by the "newchurch" for denying that "the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church built by Jesus Christ on that rock which is Peter . . . is necessary for salvation".
"they love for the lies to just hang out there for decades to sow confusion"
They love modernist bishops and cardinals in the same way.
Yeah, they asked him to sign a Profession of Faith and instead he sent the credo of Paul VI saying:
"I sign this POP of Pope Paul VI in the context of theological development and Church practice since Vatican II and the freedom and responsibility of Christians and theological searchers under canon law".
LOL! He was excommunicated for following the conciliar church and the living magesterium??? No, he was excommunicated because he was a public embarrassment not be cause of what he believed.
"Fr Tissa Balasuriya was excommunicated by the "newchurch""
Newchurch is an apt term, except now it's worship place - no longer church...
http://www.lagrange-catholic.net/dedication_15.htm
"they love for the lies to just hang out there for decades to sow confusion."
It'll probably be decades before the Vatican moves to redress this latest mess....
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04324/414174.stm
By then, all the authors will probably be cardinals - following in the footsteps of the "late, great Cardinal Bernadin".
They still haven't fixed all of the ambiguities in the CCC.
It changed again, just last week....Cardinal McCarrick described the Basilica where the USCCB was having their Mass as a "facility."
Need to keep up on these changes...then again..maybe I should just stand pat while NewChurch comes around again.
Whoa...the priest that said this risks laicization from the USCCB...Is he a Feenyite?
What church does he belong to? Maybe I'll attend it..
When they start running "Rome is worried" stories, you can be sure that someone in the Vatican is sweating buckets.
Of course, there is no problem in Ferrara's mind over the fact that Fr. Gruner has absolutely refused his obedience to his diocesan ordinaries for decades. He probably regards that as one of Fr. Gruner's virtues.
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.