Posted on 06/07/2004 12:54:26 AM PDT by ultima ratio
Portugal: Hindu ceremony at Fatima
Summary : In October and November of last year, DICI revealed the threat of an inter-religious center being built at Fatima (see DICI n° 83 and n° 85). On May 5, Portuguese television viewers were able to see on the TV channel SIC, around sixty Hindus from Lisbon, led by a high priest, paying homage to the goddess of nature in the Chapel of the Apparitions at Fatima.
The SIC journalist gave a description of the Hindus, gathered in their temple in the Portuguese capital, to pray and worship the different statues of Hindu gods. Then, having arrived at Fatima, the “pilgrims” headed for the Chapel of the Apparitions, where their priest presided over the recitation of prayers. Here is the telecaster’s commentary: “This is a unique and unprecedented moment in the history of the shrine. The Hindu priest, or Sha Tri, recites at the altar the Shaniti Pa, the prayer for peace. The Hindus can be seen removing their shoes, before approaching the rails of the sanctuary.” During the coverage, the rector of the sanctuary, Fr. Luciano Guerra declared: “These encounters give us occasion to remember that we live in a community”. (sic)
After having worshiped their gods and prayed in the chapel, the Hindus were conducted to an exhibition room, where there is a scale model of the future inter-religious basilica, in the process of being built. There, each one of them was personally welcomed by the bishop of Leira-Fatima, who bowed before the Hindu priest in response to his greeting. The Hindu priest then robed the rector of the sanctuary and the bishop of Fatima in the shawl of Hindu priests. The telecaster’s commentary: “Upon the shoulders of the highest representatives of the Church in Fatima, the Hindu priest places a shawl, bearing inscriptions from the Bagavad Gita, one of Hinduism’s sacred books.”
The report concluded with images showing a Hindu priest lighting a candle in the sanctuary, while his disciples danced outside the Chapel of the Apparitions, singing praises to their gods. The commentator ended with these words: “In 1982, a guru, a Hindu high priest, came from Bombay to Fatima. He signed the golden book immediately after Pope John Paul II and on the same page as Mother Teresa of Calcutta.”
In justification of his actions, the bishop of the diocese of Leira-Fatima, Mgr. Serafim Ferreira e Silva, declared to a local newspaper: “We do not wish to be fundamentalists, but to be sincere and honest.”
For those who missed the irony of my question--there has been no actual change in Catholic belief, no matter how many Buddhists the Pope hugs and how many Hindus this bishop bows to. The purported change in belief is a heresy, pure and simple.
Please cite an objective source, not the "Portuguese News" or other Lefebvrist propaganda sheets, that these alleged events are facts and not fantasies.
SIC is the principal TV service in Portugal.
Don't be lazy (afraid) - Check it out yourself.
Oh, and be sure to get back to us.
Why did Msgr. Lefebvre sign all the "radical" Vatican II documents? This must be an example of what led to such a radical change:
This missionary activity derives its reason from the will of God, "who wishes all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, Himself a man, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself as a ransom for all" (1 Tim. 2:45), "neither is there salvation in any other" (Acts 4:12). Therefore, all must be converted to Him, made known by the Church's preaching, and all must be incorporated into Him by baptism and into the Church which is His body. For Christ Himself "by stressing in express language the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mark 16:16; John 3:5), at the same time confirmed the necessity of the Church, into which men enter by baptism, as by a door. Therefore those men cannot be saved, who though aware that God, through Jesus Christ founded the Church as something necessary, still do not wish to enter into it, or to persevere in it." Therefore though God in ways known to Himself can lead those inculpably ignorant of the Gospel to find that faith without which it is impossible to please Him (Heb. 11:6), yet a necessity lies upon the Church (1 Cor. 9:16), and at the same time a sacred duty, to preach the Gospel. And hence missionary activity today as always retains its power and necessity. (Ad gentes, 7)
And why won't this same bishop ... allow a Tridentine Mass to be said in his diocese?
Probably too "fundamentalist". But have any Catholics asked to have a Tridentine said?
You are in denial. The reports are reliable and have been reported widely in the European press. There were also reliable witnesses. It was recorded on television as well. Besides, Assisi I and II had already taken place--which was even worse since it involved the Pope. And JPII had already given the pectoral cross to the Archbishop of Canterbury following an Anglican ceremony and prayed in a synagogue with rabbis--their prayer for the coming of a different messiah. He has also prayed WITH animists. These are not orthodox actions, nor can Vatican II be used as an excuse for them. Popes and councils have always prohibited such behavior as a violation of the first commandment.
The Archbishop signed the documents with the caveat that they be read according to tradition. All the documents of Vatican II were imprecise and ambiguous--lending themselves to interpretations out of keeping with traditional Catholic teaching. Read one way--they are consistent with Catholicism; read another way--they are in open opposition. He complained about this but went along--reluctantly. He later regretted this when he discerned which way the Modernist winds were blowing in the Vatican and throughout the Church.
What texts of Vatican II lend themselves to defending Assisi or this reported Fatima incident?
If we put up a picture of Wojtyla copulating with a pumpkin you would still deny it - or praise it.
First: ewwwww. totally unecessary. Second: Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN fame said some time ago that this whole "Lets turn Fatima into a Religion Supermarket" thing that is spread around was a load of you-know-what. Is he lying or something?
If it's true that he said that, then yes, clearly he is lying. Or to take a more charitable interpretation, perhaps he is merely mistaken.
When will you believe the evidence of your own eyes? All the photos and records have been posted time and time again. Just a few days ago I reposted the Fatima newspaper with the cover story, "A sanctuary for various creeds." This was not a hostile source, this is their own point of view from the people running the Fatima shrine.
If Fr. Mitch Pacwa or yourself or anyone else doesn't want to believe it, then they need to open their eyes.
bump
"What texts of Vatican II lend themselves to defending Assisi or this reported Fatima incident?"
You are quite right on this - nothing in the documents themselves justifies this kind of abomination.
The ambiguities in Vatican II that are capable of being interpreted in a heterodox manner, were more symptoms than the cause of the current apostasy.
The "cause" has now moved way beyond Vatican II which is starting to look decidedly conservative to the modernists who want to change the faith.
Its true, he could be mistaken. Its just so nauseating to think about, you know? A big part me of me wants to shut my eyes to even the possiblity and say "this is not happening. lalalalala."
I have been trying to look at the Hindu ceremony at Fatima from every angle, from "it really didn't happen" to "its been misinterpreted" to shutting my eyes and going lalalalala. Unfortunately none of this is working. I just get this awful sinking feeling.
Exactly, just as the "spirit of Vatican II" was contrary to the actual council texts from the very beginning in 1965. Vatican II was mostly just a convenient excuse for the liberals who had been placed in positions of power by Pius XII and Bl. John XXIII.
I know that feeling.
As far as Pacwa goes - yes, he does know much, much better.
Pius XII never placed liberals in positions of power as you say. His curia was decidedly conservative. He did not elevate the Archbishop of Milan--the future pope--precisely because he didn't trust his liberal tendencies. It was Jn XXIII and Paul VI with their beloved Council who opened the door to Modernism--and let in the whirlwind.
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.