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.

I've come upon a column by Mario Derksen which responds brilliantly to much of the foolishness you keep posting. Here is an excerpt from his column in Daily Catholic--very sharply reasoned:

_________________________________________________________

Objection 4: The First Vatican Council teaches: ". . . the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. . . ." (Denzinger 1830). Therefore, since the Pope said Lefebvre and the other five bishops are excommunicated and in schism, they are indeed excommunicated and in schism.

Answer: It would be scary if one could be schismatic and excommunicated at the mere wish of the Pope. But thankfully, whether or not one is schismatic depends upon whether one had committed a schismatic offense, and not whether the Pope has said one is a schismatic. This is likewise true of excommunication. Whether I am excommunicated latae sententiae depends on whether I have committed an offense that incurs such an excommunication. Whether I am excommunicated ferendae sententiae depends upon whether such an excommunication has been pronounced against me by the lawful authority, and whether it is justly inflicted upon me. Here we recall the words of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia: "Excommunication is said to be unjust when, though valid, it is wrongfully applied to a person really innocent but believed to be guilty. Here, of course, it is not a question of excommunication latæ sententiæ and in foro interno, but only of one imposed or declared by judicial sentence [i.e. ferendae sententiae]. It is admitted by all that a null excommunication produces no effect whatever, and may be ignored without sin." In other words, though technically "valid," an unjust excommunication may be ignored without sin because it does not bind.

The reason for this is that the Pope (or other lawful superior) does not have the ability to make someone an excommunicate or a schismatic. The person must be really guilty of an excommunicable or schismatic offense. And this is only determined by objective reality, i.e. by the facts. The Pope cannot change the past. If I have not done anything that deserves a ferendae sententiae excommunication, then even if he should excommunicate me ferendae sententiae, I know it is not binding and can rest easily, knowing that I am still a member of the Church. What, then, of the Vatican I decree quoted above? The only way I can make sense of it is by understanding it to mean that the Pope has the last word on doctrinal, disciplinary, and canonical matters. He cannot be overruled by anyone, even a council (as the Eastern Schismatic heretics believe). That means that he is the highest legal authority. However, this does not imply in any way that his judgment is always correct or that it is always binding, no matter how unjust, unfair, or perverse it might be.

Let me illustrate this by means of an analogy. The analogy I am going to use is not perfect, but I think it will suffice to get my point across. Think of the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine you're accused of murder, even though you're innocent. Let's say things have gotten really twisted, and despite your innocence, the prosecution has made a case that really makes you look guilty, and the Supreme Court - the highest legal authority in the United States judicial system - is convinced by the prosecution and condemns you to death, declaring you guilty of murder. Now, the Supreme Court is the court of last resort. This means that whatever the Supreme Court decides, goes. There's nothing you can do about it. If the Supreme Court says you're guilty, you're going to prison! Even if you didn't do what you're accused of and are totally innocent. It doesn't matter. You can't overrule the Supreme Court. You can prove outside of the court to the public that you're innocent, but the Supreme Court has made its judgment, and that's it.

So here's the rub: even though you're innocent, you're guilty "legally." As far as legality is concerned, you're "guilty"! But does that mean you really are guilty? Of course not! The Supreme Court's decision didn't make you guilty of murder. It merely said you were, but if it isn't true, you're not guilty. It's as simple as that. Analogously, if you have not committed a schismatic offense, then you're not guilty of schism, even though the highest authority in the Church - the Pope - says otherwise! And if your actions, per Church law, have not made you incur latae sententiae excommunication, then you are not latae sententiae excommunicated, even though the Pope might say otherwise.

To sum up, then, the only way I can make sense of the Vatican I decree quoted above is by saying that it refers to the Pope's legal authority, an authority which there is no higher authority on earth to appeal to. You cannot bindingly disclaim his judgment - only God, the Pope in question himself, or a future Pope can do that. Nothing Archbishop Lefebvre or the SSPX or I may say can overrule the Pope's judgment in any legally binding way. But we nevertheless can, and must, prove it to be mistaken.

I would hope that after the evidence so far presented, even a skeptic would have to agree that at the very least, it is doubtful whether Lefebvre committed a schismatic act and/or incurred excommunication. But this already would be enough to exonerate him, as Canon 14 says: "Laws, even invalidating and incapacitating ones, do not oblige when there is a doubt of law. . . ."

Objection 5: : The Pope is the authentic and final interpreter of Canon Law. If the Pope says that the canons which exonerate Lefebvre (e.g. Canons 1323, 4°, 7°; 1324, §3; §1, 8°) don't apply, then they don't apply, and you can't use them in Lefebvre's defense.

Answer: The Pope can change certain things in Canon Law, of course, but he can't change the rules in the middle of the game. If Lefebvre relied on several canons to exonerate him, then the Pope can't say afterwards that they didn't apply and then make his decision binding retroactively (in fact, the 1983 Code says: "A law comes into being when it is promulgated" [Canon 7]). If he could do that, then we might as well not have a Code of Canon Law. Then we might as well be totally at the mercy of the Pope, no matter what, in an absolute way. But that would be idolatry, as it would be worship of the Pope. Only God may and must be obeyed absolutely and unconditionally.

Now, notice that I said the Pope can change "certain" things in Canon Law. He cannot change everything but only some things. Canon Law is the Law of the Church, and many decrees in it are grounded in Divine and Eternal Law, in dogma, in doctrine, and in perennial practice. Therefore, some things simply cannot change. The Code is not arbitrary. It is not a manifesto of what the current Supreme Pontiff likes. That would be horrendous. Therefore, for instance, the Pope could never allow desecration of the Blessed Sacrament, idolatry, blasphemy, or apostasy. No Code of Canon Law could possibly declare in any binding manner that people who deliberately and freely desecrate the Eucharist, worship false gods, blaspheme the name of God, etc., incur no guilt or punishment. No Code could decree that, because these things are diametrically opposed to the Divine Law. They are unchangeable. Likewise, even God Himself could never command, tolerate, or approve of idolatry, for instance. He couldn't do it because He would be contradicting Himself, and that is impossible. So, not everything in Canon Law is merely disciplinary. Some of it is rooted in Divine Law, in dogma, in doctrine, etc.

Now, the main point here to remember is that even though the Pope may say that the canons which exonerate Lefebvre are now no longer in force (though he does not claim that, to my knowledge; we're arguing on a hypothetical level), they certainly were in force on the day of the consecrations, June 30, 1988. And that's all that matters.

Objection 6: The Pope has said that the "state of necessity" that Archbishop Lefebvre claimed to rest his case on does not exist. Now, the Pope is the Supreme Legislator, and thus if he says there is no state of necessity, then there is no state of necessity. Therefore, Lefebvre can't appeal to a state of necessity.

Answer: Several things here. First, precisely what constitutes a state of necessity is not defined in the Code of Canon Law. The relevant canon in fact says: "No one is liable to a penalty who, when violating a law or precept: acted under the compulsion of grave fear, even if only relative, or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, however, the act is intrinsically evil or tends to be harmful to souls" (Canon 1324, 4°). When we speak of the "state of necessity" (sometimes called "state of emergency"), we mean that Lefebvre acted "by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience." Now, it is clear that the Pope and other prelates in the Vatican believe that there was no necessity to ordain those bishops, nor would it have been gravely inconvenient for anyone if these bishops had not been ordained, so they think.

However, the very fact that these prelates in the Vatican, incl. the Pope, did not recognize the state of necessity is a great part of the state of necessity and makes the state even worse, i.e. more necessary, and made it even more urgent that these bishops be ordained. Why? Because since at least 1969, to my knowledge, not a single real (=traditional) Catholic was granted permission to be ordained a bishop. Every candidate who was granted permission to become a bishop was a modernist to some extent. They all had to accept Vatican II in total, they all had to accept the New Mass, and they all had to accept the New Religion. But this means that since 1969, not a single Catholic was ordained a bishop. So that means that the only bishops between 1969 and 1988 (when Lefebvre consecrated against the will of the Pope) were modernists, the greatest enemies of the Church. That's almost 20 years. Now, does this not constitute a state of necessity as far as ordaining Catholic bishops is concerned? If the Pope only allows modernists as bishops and no more Catholics, and there are no signs of this changing any time soon after almost 20 years, is it not entirely urgent for the salvation of souls and the tranquility of ecclesiastical order that real Catholics be ordained bishops?

Anyone who is a Catholic would have to agree that yes, there is such a necessity. But the Pope didn't think so. But far from proving that therefore there is no state of necessity, this made the state of necessity even more acute! Not only did the Pope not allow any Catholic bishops to be ordained for 20 years, he also didn't think that that was in any way a problem! Folks, if this does not constitute a state of necessity, then what does? If this does not qualify for a state of necessity exception as far as Canon Law is concerned, then we really have no such state of necessity exception, do we?

Let's face it. John Paul II does not think like a Catholic. It is no wonder that he would consider the ordination of four Catholic bishops to be a danger, yet not blink at the ordinations of exclusively modernist candidates for 20 years! Who can possibly fault Archbishop Lefebvre for doing what he did! He had to do it for the good of the Church and the salvation of souls.

Objection 7: It is never necessary to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff.

Answer: That's exactly what the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts said in response to the "state of necessity" argument the SSPX has made. But while the PCILT is authoritative, let's examine what they have actually said. Their claim that it is never necessary to ordain bishops against the will of the Roman Pontiff is simply gratuitous. There is no basis for making such an entirely unjustified assertion. I suppose they just made it up. I can give several scenarios which would easily refute their silly claim. For instance, imagine that a Pope becomes mentally ill. Imagine he has Alzheimer's Disease and is therefore incapacitated to make sober judgments. Imagine that he forbids any and all consecration of bishops henceforth. Let's say that over the years the situation becomes so seriously critical that in order not to endanger the salvation of souls and the continuity of the Church, bishops simply must be ordained. But the Pope remains stubborn because of his disease. This would be a perfect example in which it would be certainly necessary to defy the will of the Pope and go ahead and ordain bishops anyway.

Or imagine a situation in which we simply have a wicked Pope who positively wishes to destroy the Church and therefore forbids anyone from consecrating bishops - from now until forever. Again, the Pope's command must be resisted and bishops must be ordained when the necessity arises.

When the PCILT, therefore, says that it's never necessary to consecrate bishops against the Pope's wishes, they are not only wrong, they also give the Pope more authority than he has - and that is very dangerous - inasmuch as they make the Pope's will absolute. But the Pope, despite his high and noble office, is only a man, and there is no guarantee that he will act in accordance with the will of God unless he speaks ex cathedra on faith and morals, which is almost never.

Mario Derksen

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.