Fatima Journal Equates Traditional Catholics with the
"Taliban"
Hindu Ritual Performed
at Fatima Shrine
Another Interfaith Outrage
Blessed by Shrine Rector
by John Vennari "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 Continuation of the New Ecumenical Orientation 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.
 |
On an April 25 EWTN broadcast with Father
Mitch Pacwa, Fr. Robert J. Fox assured the viewers that everything that they
hear about what's going on at Fatima is a "fabrication," and that Fatima will
retain its Catholic identity. The recent Hindu ceremony at Fatima shows how
fraudulent are Fr. Fox's assurances. It also means that Fr. Fox and EWTN are
guilty of neutralizing the healthy resistance that Catholics should mount
against these interfaith outrages. |
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 "Father Fox’s Modernist Assault on Fatima". 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 my articles on this subject (see
Footnote 6 for links to these articles), 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 "Fatima to Become
Interfaith Shrine?"), "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."
 |
| 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 (above). Now in May 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 sanctuaries, and propounds the lie that
"all religions lead to God". |
Fidelity to Catholic Tradition Equated with "Talibanism" 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 Portugal Concerning the Scandal at the Fatima Shrine" that was
published in three Portuguese newspapers by Father Nicholas Gruner’s
organization.13 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 to
do 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".
 |
| On May 7, 2004, Notícias de
Fátima, a local newspaper in Fatima on friendly terms with the
Fatima Shrine, published a feeble defense of the new ecumenical orientation. It
equated those Catholics who resist ecumenism with the
"Taliban". |
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. Defined Dogma Cannot Change 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 The Dutch Bishops Against Ecumenism 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." The Dutch bishops explained why:
"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". A Second Desecration 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. Our Lady Conqueror of All Heresies, pray for us. Notes:
1. Saint Francis Xavier, James Brodrick, S.J.,
(New York: Wicklow Press, 1952), p. 135.
2. "Hindus Worship at Fatima Altar," Portugal
News, May 22, 2004.
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 believe 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 Interfaith Program at Fatima",
Catholic Family 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
hangar. 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.
11. "Fatima’s New Church Moves Ahead" Zenit
News, May 13, 2004.
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/news/newsviews/042804open.asp
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.)
21. Moralia, XIV: 5.
22. Ubi Primam, Inaugural Encyclical of Pope Leo
XII, May 5, 1824.
23. Encyclical Summo Jugiter, May 27,
1832.
24. Denzinger 1647.
25. Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928.
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.
This article was reprinted with permission from the June 2004 issue of
Catholic Family News — a Roman Catholic monthly published 12 times
a year.
Catholic Family News
In U.S.A: M.P.O.
Box 743, Niagara Falls, NY 14302
In Canada: P.O. Box 694, Niagara
Falls, ON L2E 6V5 Related Articles:
Return to
Table of
Contents
|