Hindu Ritual Performed at Fatima Shrine

To: Unam Sanctam; 8mmMauser; AAABEST; Polycarp IV; NYer; Salvation; cpforlife.org; ultima ratio; ...
Here is a nice Novus Ordo source for you Lee Penn of New Oxford Review hardly a bastion of traditionalism. He has the good sense to see that something is "rotten in Denmark" when are the conservative's going to wake up and see what all of this false ecumenism is doing to the Church. The conciliar authorities have set their path and its not the same one you seem to think it is. I know this shocks you that the possibility that this really happened but its time for people to wake up and say NO to the Vatican on these novelties. We have got to tell them not one penny of our money will go to support this syncratistic addition to the Fatima Shrine.

Despite Official Denials, Fatima Shrine Seems Headed On Interfaith Path

Report/Analysis By Lee Penn
The Christian Challenge (Washington, DC)
May 30, 2004

Ideas of "mingling" and "converging" religions are hardly new, but it is
startling to find them at Portugal's famed Roman Catholic shrine at Fatima.

Nonetheless, such ideas appear to be taking hold at Fatima, despite official
denials and claims that hardline traditional Catholics are stirring unfounded
controversy over Fatima. Even more surprising, perhaps, is that the trends do
not appear to be opposed--so far--by Pope John Paul II.

Fatima is the site where the Catholic Church says an Angel of Peace and the
Virgin Mary appeared to three children on several occasions in 1916 and 1917,
giving them messages for the Church and the faithful, and calling all to
conversion, repentance, and prayer. Two of the three Fatima visionaries, who died
soon after the apparitions, have been canonized by Pope John Paul II. One
visionary, Sister Lucy, is still living; she is a cloistered nun.

The controversy surrounding the Roman Catholic shrine at Fatima began in the
fall of 2003, when a Portuguese newspaper reported that the site would be
remade into an interfaith shrine. Catholic officials denied the assertion, saying
that the shrine will retain its Catholic, Marian focus.

But in early May this year, a Hindu priest worshiped his faith's gods at the
altar of Fatima's Chapel of the Appartions, and he clothed the shrine's rector
and the diocesan bishop in Hindu priests' vestments.

Reporting on the Hindu service on May 5, the Portuguese broadcast news
services SIC and SIC Notícias said that the Hindu priest chanted prayers from the
altar, on behalf of 60 Hindu pilgrims who gathered before him, outside the altar
rail. A local television reporter explained, "This is an unprecedented
unique moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, [prayed]
on the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace."

Additionally, the news report showed "scenes of the Hindu priest lighting a
candle at the shrine while his followers [danced] outside the Chapel of the
Apparitions chanting praises to their gods."

The TV broadcast showed that after the service, each of the Hindus was
"personally greeted by the [Roman Catholic] Bishop of Leiria-Fátima," who then
"bowed to the Hindu priest repeating his gesture of greeting." The Hindu priest
then clothed the diocesan bishop and Msgr. Luciano Guerra, the rector of the
Fatima shrine, with a Hindu priestly shawl. The reporter told his viewers, "On
the shoulders of the highest representatives of the Church in Fatima, the Hindu
priest [placed] a shawl with the inscriptions of the Bagavad Gita, one of the
sacred books of Hinduism."

The two Catholic dignitaries explained these events with rhetoric reminiscent
of that used by Frank Griswold, the Presiding Bishop of the U.S. Episcopal
Church. Fr. Guerra said during the broadcast that: "These meetings give us the
opportunity to remind ourselves that we live in community." And the diocesan
bishop, D. Serafim Ferreira e Silva, told a local newspaper: "We don't want to
be fundamentalist, but sincere and honest." The only Griswoldian buzzwords
they forgot were "reconciliation" and "inclusive."

A CONFERENCE sponsored by the Fatima shrine last October 10-12 demonstrates
that the Hindu service was hardly an inadvertent event. Titled "The Present of
Man--The Future of God: The Place of Sanctuaries in Relation to the Sacred,"
the conference was attended by an array of prominent Catholics. They included
Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, president of the Pontifical Council for
Interreligious Dialogue; Cardinal José da Cruz Policarpo, the Roman Catholic patriarch
of Lisbon; Fr. Jacques Dupuis, professor of theology at Rome's Gregorian
University; and the aforementioned Bishop Silva, and Msgr. Guerra, rector of the
shrine.

The event occurred at the Paul VI Pastoral Center adjacent to the shrine, and
was opened by Bishop Silva. The rector of the shrine said in December 2003
that the meeting was inspired by "the reading of the message of Fatima…within
the spirit of Vatican II."

Adherents of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), traditionalist followers of
the excommunicated Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, protested at the meeting site.
Msgr. Guerra said in a January 2004 interview that the SSPX demonstrators
"behaved very badly. Instead of listening first and talking later, they began
immediately distributing leaflets."

But some Catholics will think the Lefebvrites had reason to protest. The
Belgian Jesuit theologian Fr. Dupuis told the conference October 11 that "we
should not refer to the other religions as 'non-Christian', since this is a
negative term that describes them by what we think they are not. Rather…we should
refer to them as 'the others'."

Dupuis added that "Christians and 'the others' are co-members of the Reign of
God in history," and that "the Holy Spirit is present and operative in the
sacred books of Hinduism or of Buddhism," as well as in "the sacred rites of
Hinduism."

"The universality of God's kingdom permits this," he declared, "and this is
nothing more than a diversified form of sharing in the same mystery of
salvation." Dupuis predicted that "The religion of the future will be a general
converging of religions in a universal Christ that will satisfy all."

An eyewitness to the conference, John Vennari, a traditionalist Catholic,
reported that almost everyone present, including the Catholic hierarchs,
vigorously applauded Dupuis' speech. This occurred despite a 2001 warning by the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican theological watchdog, that
a recent book by Dupuis on religious pluralism erred with certain ambiguities
and inadequate explanations relating to five doctrinal points.

The next day, Sunday, October 12, Archbishop Fitzgerald praised Fr. Dupuis'
speech, saying the cleric had "explained the theological basis of the
establishment of relations with people of other religions."

Fitzgerald averred that "The Church is there to recognize the holiness that
is in other people, the elements of truth, grace and beauty that are in
different religions," and "to try to bring about a greater peace and harmony among
people of other religions."

These novel statements on the Church's mission are significant, since they
come from the head of the Vatican department in charge of inter-religious
dialogue.

Many of the conference speeches were in Portuguese, but the speeches by
Dupuis and Fitzgerald were in English. These two speeches were recorded in person
by Mr. Vennari.

On the same day that Fitzgerald spoke, "Father Arul Irudayam, rector of the
Marian Shrine Basilica in Vailankanni, India … rejoiced that, as a further
development of interreligious practice, the Hindus now perform their religious
rituals in the church," according to Vennari.

In his November 2003 report on the conference, Vennari accurately predicted
that "it is only a matter of time before this blasphemy takes place at Fatima."

DEBUNKERS of the reports about interfaith excesses at Fatima have noted that
stories of these activities have appeared in a little-noticed Portuguese
English-language weekly, Front Page Online, and in traditionalist Catholic
publications that are vehemently opposed to the direction taken by the Catholic Church
since Vatican II.

But Vennari pointed out that the October 24, 2003, issue of "the local Fatima
weekly newspaper, Notícias de Fatima, which is friendly with the Fatima
Shrine," reported on the interfaith conference "under the headline, 'Sanctuary of
Various Creeds'…The front page featured the caption, 'The future of Fatima must
pass through the creation of a Shrine where different religions can mingle.'"
The statement paralleled one attributed to Shrine Rector Msgr. Guerra by
Front Page Online last November.

Page 8 of the same issue of Noticias de Fatima ran the headline, "Sanctuary
Opens Itself to Religious Pluralism" followed by the subheading: "The Shrine of
Fatima Assumes a Universalist and Welcoming Vocation Towards Different
Religions."

Notícias de Fatima then quoted Msgr. Guerra as saying that: "This proposal of
coexistence - also in Fatima - of a religious pluralism is still embryonic.
It's the first step. We are like the engineers in Portugal who begin by
examining the structures of the bridges to see if we can trust them in the future."
This assertion by Guerra also was included in the Front Page Online coverage.

According to Noticias de Fatima, Msgr. Guerra further pointed out that the
very fact that Fatima is the name of a Muslim and Mohammed's daughter is
indicative that the shrine must be open to the co-existence of various faiths and
beliefs. "Therefore we must assume that it was the will of the Blessed Virgin
Mary that this comes about this way," he was quoted as saying.

Traditional Catholics in opposition were described by Guerra as "old
fashioned, narrow minded, fanatic extremists and provocateurs."

Church spokesmen have blamed recent controversy over Fatima on
publicity-seeking by Fr. Nicholas Gruner, a traditionalist Catholic priest who was suspended
by the Vatican in 1996 for disobedience, and who continues to publicly state
that the Catholic hierarchy has ignored or falsified the requests made by the
Virgin Mary in her Fatima apparitions. Additionally, according to the rector
of the shrine, "the great majority, perhaps the totality, of the reactions
received is the result of a long orchestration, centered in the United States, by
people bitterly opposed to Vatican Council II, specifically to what pertains
to a wider opening of the Church, with emphasis on the ecumenical and
inter-faith dialogue." However, reporter John Vennari, who acknowledged that he
visited the October 2003 interfaith conference at the behest of Gruner's
organization, said that "no one from Fr. Gruner's organization had anything to do with
the articles" that appeared in Front Page Online and in Notícias de Fatima.

And, since word of the interfaith trends at Fatima first emerged last fall,
attempted reassurances by officials at the Vatican and the shrine have been
undercut by clearly contradictory messages, and no one has denied or retracted
the statements attributed above to Dupuis, Guerra, and Fitzgerald during the
October interfaith conference.

Archbishop Fitzgerald described the October 2003 conference as "part of an
ongoing reflection" on the sanctuary's "inter-religious dimension" in the Church
and the modern world," and said that "there were no practical conclusions
arising from the meeting."

Last November, he declared that "There is no question of the Fatima
sanctuary becoming an inter-faith pilgrimage center…This is a place of prayer centered
on Our Lady, and everyone is welcome."

But in late 2003, Archbishop Fitzgerald told Zenit (a Catholic news service)
that "we must learn to journey together, for if we drift apart we do ourselves
harm, but if we walk together we can help one another to reach the goal that
God has set for us."

A large new church, conceived in a stark modern style, is being built at
Fatima to accommodate 9,000 pilgrims at a time. The design by a Greek Orthodox
architect, Alexandros Tombazis, has received the approval of the diocesan bishop,
and construction is to begin soon. In a December 28, 2003 statement, the
rector of the Fatima shrine said that the new church will be "exclusively destined
to be a place of Catholic worship, located not next to the current basilica,
but between the Cruz Alta and a national road and, when opportune ... can
receive pilgrims of other convictions who wish to fraternally partake in our way
of prayer."

On March 9, 2004, the Pope personally gave the rector of the Fatima shrine a
stone fragment from the tomb of St. Peter; this relic will be formally placed
as the cornerstone of the new basilica on June 6. Thus, the new basilica is
proceeding with the highest blessing from the Vatican.

In an interview with Zenit, published on May 13, 2004, the Bishop of
Leiria-Fatima said that the new church at the shrine "will be a Catholic one, much
like the Pius X Church in Lourdes … As with any Catholic church, it will be open
to all, but the services held there will be Catholic." The Bishop dismissed
concerns over interfaith worship at Fatima as "a controversy caused by a few
foreigners."

But in his December 28, 2003 communiqué, Msgr. Guerra asserted that the
Fatima apparitions included "at least two implicit calls to the exercise of the
spirit of dialogue with persons of other convictions." These calls included "the
message of the Angel of Peace," regarding the Oriental, Orthodox, and
Catholic Churches, and, "in regard to the Islamic religion, in the name itself that
God chose for the town where Mary would one day appear: Fatima."

It was Guerra who earlier assured an interviewer that: "We are very far from
having Hindus or any Muslims pray in Fatima, except if they do it in private -
not in public liturgies or other such services."

---

Permission to circulate the foregoing electronically is permitted provided
that THE CHRISTIAN CHALLENGE is credited and there are no changes in the text.
To learn more about the CHALLENGE, please visit: http://www.occfgroup.org/tcc/

FlatThreadedNested Oldest FirstNewest First

The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

Main Menu
Home

Web Links

News

Submit News

Archive

Previous Issues

Downloads

Forum

Contact Us

You've got to be kidding me about Avery Dulles as a source -he is a neo modernist who has mellowed a bit. Dietrich von Hildebrand and Msgr Kelly both wrote and spoke about Dulles dissident views. Dulles has written several questionable books but under today's standards he seems conservative. He was against Humanie Vitae when it first came out although he said he’s changed on that issue. A good tape is "Fr. Dulles: A Church to Believe In- a Critique" by Msgr George Kelley Narrated by Joel Blake. I think you can get it through Keep the Faith. The pope also made Urs von Baltasar and De Lubac both of whom were censured under Puis X. They wouldn’t even let von Baltasar come to Vat. II council because he was so radical. He wanted to tare down the bastions of the Church and that is just what they did. Now the barbarians are within the walls. Just because Dulles was made a cardinal doesn't mean he was a good choice. In fact even though the Pope took Cardinal Law out of his position in Boston - he gave him a very prestigious position at St. Mary Major in Rome. This was after the sex scandals. Something is very rotten in Denmark and you can apply that to other European cities near the Mediterranean.

pro Athanasius,

I don't consider everything Dulles says as right. But he's not a liar either - if he says Kasper's book follows the traditional understandings of Christ, I believe him.

I am not calling Dulles a liar just confused. You are making a mistake following Dulles theology. He is a confused individual - particularly his earlier writing.

I am not calling Dulles a liar just confused.

It seems quite impossible for him to be so "confused" that he could say that Kasper's book teaches the traditional conception of Christ's divinity, resurrection, and miracles, if Kasper truly denied them, as ultima claimed: "he is on record denying the Resurrection and the Gospel miracles and the divinity of Christ".

Kasper is not going to deny anything- its what he leaves out and the unorthodox way he rephrases traditional theology to sound antithical to the old. This man is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Kasper is a liberal and this is what Pius IX said:In a letter to the French deputation headed by the Bishop of Nevers on June 18, 1871, Blessed “That which I fear is not the Commune of Paris - no - that which I fear is liberal Catholicism ... I have said so more than forty times, and I repeat it to you now, through the love that I bear you. The real scourge of France is Liberal Catholicism, which endeavors to unite two principles as repugnant to each other as fire and water.”10
Quoted from The Catholic Doctrine, Father Michael Muller (Benzinger, 1888?) p. 282 He also had shady goings on with the German government over handing out certificates about abortion for which he received a slap in the wrist by the Pope and Cardinal Ratziner then was promoted with the cardinal’s hat www.thetablet.co.uk/cgi-bin/citw.cgi/past-00006 - 23k and www.dailycatholic.org/issue/2001Apr/apr2ed.htm - 18k

POPE Saint PIUS X PASCENDI DOMINICI GREGIS (Modernism) #18 “Hence in their books you find some things which might well be expressed by a Catholic, but in the next page you find other things which might have been dictated by a rationalist. When they write history they make no mention of the divinity of Christ, but when they are in the pulpit they profess it clearly; again, when they write history they pay no heed to the Fathers and the Councils, but when they catechize the people, they cite them respectfully...feeling no horror at treading in the footsteps of Luther, they are wont to display a certain contempt for Catholic doctrines, or the Holy Fathers, for the Ecumenical Councils, for the ecclesiastical magisterium; and should they be rebuked for this, they complain that they are being deprived of their liberty.”

Cardinal Walter Kasper, President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity:
"The decision of Vatican II, to which the Pope adheres and spreads, is absolutely clear: Today we no longer understand ecumenism in the sense of the ecumenism of a return, by which the others would 'be converted' and return to being 'Catholics.' This was expressly abandoned by Vatican II. Today ecumenism is considered as the common road: all should be converted to the following of Christ, and it is in Christ that we will find ourselves in the end.... Even the Pope, among other things, describes ecumenism in Ut unum sint as an exchange of gifts. I think this is very well said: each Church has its own riches and gifts of the Spirit, and it is this exchange that unity is trying to be achieved and not the fact that we should become 'Protestants' or that the others should become 'Catholics' in the sense of accepting the confessional form of Catholicism." (Adista, Rome, February 26, 2001, p. 9 - Emphasis mine)

Kasper Vs. Past papal teaching on searching for Unity.
ln 1919,the Holy See being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope
Benedict XV explained that although his earnest desire was one fold and
one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with
others in search of unity. “As for the Church of Christ, it is already one
and could not give the appearance of searching for itself or for its own
unity.”

[ The pope reiterates that true unity can be reached only when
non-Catholics return to the Church ]
Pope Pius XI in Mortalium Animos
" So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never
allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for
the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to
the one true Church of Christ of those who are separated from it, for in
the past they have unhappily left it. " Pope JP II never tells anyone
to come back to the Catholic Church.

Kasper heresy came in an address filled with theological errors that he delivered to a Catholic-Anglican conference in late May 2003. In this address Kasper proclaimed, among other outrages, that ““Jesus was well aware…… that his disciples would not be one, and that they would be dispersed”” and that ““The unity of the Church can be accomplished only by a renewed Pentecost……”” After denying the unity of the Church, Kasper declared that ““unity”” between Catholics and Anglicans is ““not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles —— this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which, by the way, historically could hardly be proved and ascertained.””

Kasper added: ““To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain, but of collegial membership in a collegium, which, as a whole, goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission……. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain, but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.””

Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos (#9), on the unity of the Church: “… that unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief and one faith of Christians.”(119)

Pope Pius X, Encyclical, May 26, 1910: “… the Church remains immutable and constant, ‘as the pillar and foundation of truth,’ in professing one identical doctrine…”(120)

St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: “The Church is a holy university or general company of men united and collected together in the profession of one same Christian faith…”(121)

Perhaps Kasper gets his lead from Pope John Paul II’s “search for unity” instead of telling people to return to the one true Church- the Catholic Church “ "The world needs the witness of our unity, rooted in our common love for and obedience to Christ and his Gospel. It is
fidelity to Christ which compels us to continue to search for full visible unity and to find appropriate ways of engaging, whenever possible, in common witness and mission.”

Kasper thus openly called for a ““re-evaluation”” and a ““new”” understanding of an infallible and thus irreformable papal pronouncement! He even had the temerity to cast doubt on the infallible definition of papal primacy at the First Vatican Council (1869/70): ““[T]he historical conditionality of the dogma of the First Vatican Council (1869/70)…… must be distinguished from its remaining obligatory content.”” The Pope has given the red hat to a man who publicly proclaims infallible dogmas to be historically conditional¾ precisely as Cardinal Ratzinger [yet another JP II cardinal] has done with the pre-Vatican II anti-modernist and anti-liberal pronouncements he does not like.In 1990, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issued an ““Instruction on the Theologian’’s Ecclesiastical Vocation.”” In explaining the Instruction to the press, Cardinal Ratzinger asserted that certain teachings of the Magisterium were ““not considered to be the final word on the subject as such, but serve rather as a mooring in the problem, and, above all, as an expression of pastoral prudence, a kind of temporary disposition.”” As examples of these ““temporary dispositions,”” Ratzinger cited ““the statements of the Popes during the last century on religious freedom, as well as the anti-modernist decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission of that time.”” L’’Osservatore Romano, English Weekly Edition, July 2, 1990. p. 5.

See www.cpats.org/.../2002_12DecermberQuestions/2002DecArticleOnMissionRoleWithJewishPeople.cfm - 10k By John Thavis
Catholic News Service November 7, 2002
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In their relations with Jews, Christians cannot conceal the strong missionary dimension of their faith, but also must recognize that Jews do not have to convert in order to be saved, a top Vatican official (Kasper) said.

Cardinal Kasper has just published an article rejecting Cardinal Ratzinger’’s theological statement The Church as Communion, which he issued in 1992 as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. This document (however ambiguously) upholds the primacy of the universal Church, centered in Rome, over local ““particular churches.””

His Eminence Kasper may be leaning towards Protestantism, but that doesn't mean it's true that "he is on record denying the Resurrection and the Gospel miracles and the divinity of Christ".

Modernists rarely go on record denying anything. They are very clever- that is their ploy. You have to read between the lines and see their heteropraxis demonstrated

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.
Kasper is opposed not only to the liberal Christologies of the nineteenth century but, even more emphatically, to the twentieth century secular and anthropological Christologies, which present Jesus as the culmination of the evolutionary process and as the supreme fulfillment of essential humanity. In Kasper's estimation, such theories (represented by Teilhard de Chardin, Karl Rahner, and Wolfhart Pannenberg, among others) inevitably tend to reduce Christ to a mere symbol of cosmic and human evolution. Particularly sharp are Kasper's criticisms of the Dutch Catholic theologian, Piet Schoonenberg, whom he accuses of falling into modalism and of directly contradicting the ancient councils by holding that Jesus is a human-not a divine-person.

I don't see how you can "read between the lines" here and somehow see Kasper as denying Christ's divinity, miracles, or resurrection.

My friend . Please excuse this terribly long post. One time when Paul was preaching a kid fell out the window because he spoke so long. (I'm not compairing myself to this great Saint just the situation.) So I hope you don't fall off your chair. Bare with one of my faults- but the facts require a responce to your citations. I just quoted you a statement from Kasper's writings that shows he is very possitive on Teilhard de Chardin and you dismissed it. There is no doubt about it that Kasper is a confused individual and that his writings are very dubious at best.

Kasper heresy came in an address filled with theological errors that he delivered to a Catholic-Anglican conference in late May 2003. In this address Kasper proclaimed, among other outrages, that ““Jesus was well aware…… that his disciples would not be one, and that they would be dispersed”” and that ““The unity of the Church can be accomplished only by a renewed Pentecost……”” After denying the unity of the Church, Kasper declared that ““unity”” between Catholics and Anglicans is ““not a question of apostolic succession in the sense of an historical chain of laying on of hands running back through the centuries to one of the apostles —— this would be a very mechanical and individualistic vision, which, by the way, historically could hardly be proved and ascertained.””

Kasper added: ““To stand in the apostolic succession is not a matter of an individual historical chain, but of collegial membership in a collegium, which, as a whole, goes back to the apostles by sharing the same apostolic faith and the same apostolic mission……. Such acknowledgement is not a question of an uninterrupted chain, but of the uninterrupted sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission.””

This man obviously thinks he knows more that Leo XIII who stated in his encylical for your benefit http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13curae.htm. On the Nullity of Anglican Orders Apostolicae Curae Promulgated September 18, 1896 by Pope Leo XIII

“15. The authority of Julius m, and of Paul IV, which we have quoted, clearly shows the origin of that practice which has been observed without interruption for more than three centuries, that Ordinations conferred according to the Edwardine rite should be considered null and void. This practice is fully proved by the numerous cases of absolute re-ordination according to the Catholic rite even in Rome.”

25. But the words which until recently were commonly held by Anglicans to constitute the proper form of priestly ordination namely, "Receive the Holy Ghost," certainly do not in the least definitely express the sacred Ordel of Priesthood (sacerdotium) or its grace and power, which is chiefly the power "of consecrating and of offering the true Body and Blood of the Lord" (Council of Trent, Sess. XXIII, de Sacr. Ord. , Canon 1) in that sacrifice which is no "bare commemoration of the sacrifice offered on the Cross" (Ibid, Sess XXII., de Sacrif. Missae, Canon 3).
26. This form had, indeed, afterwards added to it the words "for the office and work of a priest," etc.; but this rather shows that the Anglicans themselves perceived that the first form was defective and inadequate. But even if this addition could give to the form its due signification, it was introduced too late, as a century had already elapsed since the adoption of the Edwardine Ordinal, for, as the Hierarchy had become extinct, there remained no power of ordaining.
27. In vain has help been recently sought for the plea of the validity of Anglican Orders from the other prayers of the same Ordinal. For, to put aside other reasons when show this to be insufficient for the purpose in the Anglican life, let this argument suffice for all. From them has been deliberately removed whatever sets forth the dignity and office of the priesthood in the Catholic rite. That "form" consequently cannot be considered apt or sufficient for the Sacrament which omits what it ought essentially to signify.
And then finally here is the clincher by Pope Leo “40. We decree that these letters and all things contained therein shall not be liable at any time to be impugned or objected to by reason of fault or any other defect whatsoever of subreption or obreption of our intention, but are and shall be always valid and in force and shall be inviolably observed both juridically and otherwise, by all of whatsoever degree and preeminence, declaring null and void anything which, in these matters, may happen to be contrariwise attempted, whether wittingly or unwittingly, by any person whatsoever, by whatsoever authority or pretext, all things to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Now you know as well as I do that Kasper said to the Anglicans that the old concept of Apostolic succession would have to be “rethought” and updated- that’s a uphemism for throw it out the window. In Kasper’s view the Anglican’s are part of the Catholic Church- just another “eccleisial community within it with a different rite instead of an “uninterrupted chain” which is just to litural and clear for him it’s the more ceribral touchy feely “sharing of faith and mission, and as such is a question of communion in the same faith and in the same mission”. Pope Leo XIII for the progressive presents a bit of a problem but its not insurmontable for them because they just use Vatican II as a deapening understanding to clarify a somewhat new teaching which has not been understood by “certain segments” of the Church. The “new” gnostics have an inner knowledge which was not based on the New Testement but perhaps the “gnostic gospels” which were a secret tradition which the apostles did not want most people to know about and they handed it down to be fully revealed by wise sages after Vatican II. Vatican II is the “New Advent” and the “New Springtime” and all of these ‘New Policies” are based on Vatican II or at least that is what we are told. When we ask these new sages where it says that in Vatican II they point to this or that and then if we are honest we say well it is a bit ambiguous there. I can see where maybe you can read it in that “progressive” way. That is too bad for the Church and the facts bear this out- that the ambigiuity has damaged the Church

Here is one for you Pope Pius VI condemns as willful ambiguity:
Pope Pius VI, Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794: “[The Ancient Doctors] knew the capacity of innovators in the art of deception. In order not to shock the ears of Catholics, they sought to hide the subtleties of their tortuous maneuvers by the use of seemingly innocuous words such as would allow them to insinuate error into souls in the most gentle manner. Once the truth had been compromised, they could, by means of slight changes or additions in phraseology, distort the confession of the faith which is necessary for our salvation, and lead the faithful by subtle errors to their eternal damnation. This manner of dissimulation and lying is vicious, regardless of the circumstance under which it is used. For very good reason it can never be tolerated in a Synod of which the principal glory consists above all in teaching the truth with clarity and excluding all danger of error. Moreover, if all this is sinful, it cannot be excused in the way that one sees it being done, under the erroneous pretext that the seemingly shocking affirmations in one place are further developed along orthodox lines in other places, and even in yet other places corrected; as if allowing for the possibility of ether affirming or denying the statement, or of leaving it up to the personal inclinations of the individual--such has always been the fraudulent and daring method used by innovators to establish error. It allows for both the possibility of promoting error and of excusing it. It is as if the innovators pretended that they always intended to present the alternative passages, especially to those of simple faith who eventually come to know only some part of the conclusions of such discussions which are published in the common language for everyone’s use. Or again, as if the same faithful had the ability on examining such documents to judge such matters for themselves without getting confused and avoiding all risk of error. It is a most reprehensible technique for the insinuation of doctrinal errors and one condemned long ago by our predecesor Saint Celestine who found it used in the writings of Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and which he exposed in order to condemn it with the greatest possible severity. Once these texts were examined carefully, the impostor was exposed and confounded, for he expressed himself in a plethora of words, mixing true things with others that were obscure; mixing at times one with the other in such a way that he was also able to confess those things which were denied while at the same time possessing a basis for denying those very sentences which he confessed. In order to expose such snares, something which becomes necessary with a certain frequency in every century, no other method is required then the following: Whenever it becomes necessary to expose statements which disguise some suspected error or danger under the veil of ambiguity, one must denounce the perverse meaning under which the error opposed to Catholic truth is camouflaged.”
By Kasper the friendly ‘ecumenist’ making these statements to the Anglican so called Bishops he opens it up latter if he ever becomes Pope or one of his cronies by saying “well our Anglican brothers are Christians just like we are and they have the same faith and same mission now and so Pope Leo 13 didn’t know what the deepening understanding of “ecclesial communities” are because he didn’t have the benefit of the “developement of doctrine” that we have with our modern Vatican II. Once they start throwing out the window the past wise papal teaching on paper and by action then you will know that the mystery of iniquity is here. Vatican I said you can not have NEW DOCTRINE. Thus, according toVatican I, the meaning and interpretation of doctrines cannot change according to the development of philosophy or modern values.see Ses 3 Chapt 4: Canon 3 see http://www.dailycatholic.org/history/20ecume2.htm" If anyone shall assert it to be possible that sometimes, according to the progress of knowledge, a sense is to be given to doctrines propounded by the Church different from that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.
Even the Roman Pontiff cannot change the doctrines that his predecessors had defined ex cathedra. “For” – as the First Vatican Council Sec. 3 chapt 4 also stated – “the Holy Spirit was not promised to the successors of Peter, that by His revelation they might make known new doctrine, but that by His assistance they might inviolably keep and faithfully expound the revelation or deposit of faith delivered through the Apostles.”
Devolpement of doctrine can not mean evolution in the sence of Changing to something different/contradiction such as biological Darwinian evolution and Hegelian Dialectic teach both of which are absurdities that any 5 year old can see. Developement means see See http://www.chattablogs.com/hagioipateres/archives/009181.html.
St. Vincent of Lerins: On the "Development" of the Christian Faith
Chapter XXIII.
On Development in Religious Knowledge.
[54.] “But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.
[55.] “The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
[56.] “In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts,...”

Yes you are right that we must be doers of the law of love this is why I am trying to do the right thing and show you that Kasper is misguided lest you fall into his way of thinking. I am sure that you wouldn't it is just that you misuderstand how confused Kasper really is. Sometimes really smart people can confuse others- they say some good things but then as Pius X said you turn the page and in small print it hits you that they are wolves in sheeps clothing. Origin said good things too but he was a heretic. God bless you.

I'm not going to try to defend Kasper on the apostolic succession - I've already said I think he's wrong on that.

However nothing you posted makes me think that Kasper denies Christ's divinity, miracles, or resurrection.

Origin said good things too but he was a heretic.

Oh, and Origen was not a heretic.

Oh, and Origen was not a heretic.

Having discovered that Origen was condemned at the 649 Lateran Council under St. Martin I, I retract that.