Hindu Ritual Performed at Fatima Shrine

“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

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.”

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.

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

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.”

“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”.

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.

1. Saint Francis Xavier, James Brodrick, S.J., (New York: Wicklow Press, 1952), p. 135.

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.

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.)

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.

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

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.””

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.

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.