1. Moscow Conference

    image
  2. Rome 2017

    Rome 2017
  3. Fatima Portugal

    Fatima Portugal 2017
  4. Ask Father

    image

In their attempts to deny, they confirm

Shrine Rector Confirms
New Ecumenical Orientation at Fatima

by John Vennari

After two months of silence, Fatima Shrine officials finally spoke publicly about the alleged plan to turn Fatima into an interfaith Shrine. Three news reports came from Fatima on the subject. The first was a January 1, 2004 Zenit report based on a December 28, 2003 Communiqué from Fatima Shrine Rector, Msgr. Guerra; the second was the Shrine’s own web posting of the December 28 Communiqué that was somewhat different from what Zenit reported (the reasons for which will be explained); the third was a brief interview with Rector Guerra posted on a Medjugorje web page.

The Zenit Report

Zenit news posted on January 1 the article "What is Happening in Fatima?" in which the alleged plan to turn Fatima into an interfaith Shrine was discussed. The article contained various falsehoods, mostly coming from Shrine Rector Guerra.

Reporter Delia Gallagher said that Zenit received a three-page fax from Bishop Serafim de Sousa Ferreira e Silva (written in Portuguese) dated December 28, in which the Shrine Rector at Fatima alleged that Father Nicholas Gruner was responsible for the original November 1 Portugal News report "Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine."

"It is our conviction", said Fatima Shrine Rector Guerra, "that the article in Portugal News has been guided by some members of the group led by Father Nicholas Gruner." Rector Guerra’s assumption was completely false. I can state categorically that Father Gruner has absolutely no connection with Portugal News and is in no way responsible for the November 1 report.

I attended the Fatima Interfaith Congress at the request of Father Gruner’s organization and filed my own report on Father Gruner’s web page "Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine? An Account from One Who Was There".1 It was also published in the Winter 2004 issue of The Fatima Crusader.

In that report, I quote the Portugal News article, and I also quote a local newspaper from Fatima, Notícias de Fátima, that ran the headline "Sanctuary for Various Creeds." But absolutely no one from Father Gruner’s organization had anything to do with the articles appearing in the Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.

Zenit also claimed that Father Gruner was involved with the "We Resist You to the Face" statement. This is not true. The Resistance statement was a collaboration between Atila Sinke Guimarães, Michael Matt, Marian Horvat and myself. Father Gruner did not know of or read the "We Resist You to the Face" statement until after it was first published in the May 30, 2000 issue of The Remnant.

It is interesting that Zenit was favored with a faxed response from Fatima authorities, whereas other Catholic reporters were not. Christopher Ferrara, on behalf of The Remnant, contacted the Shrine by fax on November 23, 2003+ to pose questions about Fatima’s new pan-religious* initiative and to ask Rector Guerra to confirm or deny the quotations attributed to him in Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima. Rector Guerra did not respond to Mr. Ferrara’s fax of November 23, nor to his e-mail of November 10, nor did anyone else from the Shrine offer a response. Indeed, the Monsignor did not deny the reported statement anywhere in the three-page fax to Zenit, in which he had every opportunity to do so. The reasonable conclusion to be drawn is that the Monsignor does not deny the accuracy of quotations attributed to him in Portugal News and Notícias de Fátima.2

{+Editor's Note: See copy of Nov. 21 Fax, successfully sent Nov. 23, in the article "Did You or Did You Not" in this Issue.
*pan-religious: something for all religions, that is - all but the one true religion.}

A "Revised" Communiqué

I wrote the above on January 2 in response to Zenit’s report and it was immediately posted on various websites. Ten days later, I learned that the Fatima Shrine posted on its own web page the December 28 Communiqué. This one, however, is changed, and all explicit references to Father Gruner are removed. He is not mentioned at all. When I asked Zenit if they could explain the discrepancy, they replied that on January 7, the Fatima Shrine faxed them an English rendition of the December 28 statement that contained some changes, and wherein explicit mention of Father Gruner was taken out. It is this English version that now appears on the Fatima Shrine web page.

What is clear from both of the "December 28" statements, whether reported by Zenit or on the Shrine web page, is that Fatima leaders are now committed to the post-Conciliar, pan-religious initiative. Rector Guerra contends that "the Fatima apparitions were exhortation to interreligious dialogue." This is preposterous. Our Lady of Fatima called for conversion to Catholicism in Russia and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart throughout the world. The ecumenism and "interreligious dialogue" practiced since the Council would have horrified any of the popes before 1958. These novelties — including prayer meetings with witch doctors and voodoo priests at Assisi (see photos in "Stop the Outrage Now") — are clear departures from 2000 years of Catholic teaching and practice.

Further, eleven years after the Fatima apparitions, Pope Pius XI issued the 1928 encyclical Mortalium animos (reprinted, see "Fostering True Religious Unity" in this Issue) which condemns the same ecumenism that has been nurtured since Vatican II.

In this encyclical, Pope Pius XI wrote that the Holy See has "always forbidden" Catholics to take part in interreligious assemblies. Pope Pius rightly insisted, "unity can only arise from one teaching authority, one law of belief, one faith of Christians." Pope Pius also wrote that the "fair and alluring words" of the pan-religious orientation "cloak a most deadly error subversive to the Catholic Faith."

Fatima "Reinterpreted"

To defend, however, the allegation that Our Lady of Fatima’s Message was a call to interreligious dialogue, Rector Guerra resorts to explanations that are thick with nonsense. He writes:

"In the Message of Fatima, facts and words seem to contain, at least, two implicit calls to the exercise of this spirit of dialogue with people of different convictions. Thus, in the apparitions of the Angel of Peace we find two important clues: the fact that the Angel prostrated himself down on the ground while praying, in the first and third apparitions; and the fact that, in the third, he did give Communion, under the species of bread, to the oldest seer, since she had already received her first Communion, and, under the species of wine, to Francisco and Jacinta, who had not. Considering the fact that both practices had fallen into disuse, centuries ago, in the Latin Catholicism, and have remained still alive amongst the oriental Christians, it is acceptable — it seems even compulsory — to see in that an invitation to try to link Fatima to the oriental churches, both Catholic and Orthodox. In other words, the message of the Angel of Peace contains an appeal to the ecumenical dialogue with those churches separated from Rome more than a thousand years ago. Dialogue that, thanks to God, is progressing slowly but determinedly by both parties."3

First, keep in mind that at the 2003 Fatima Congress organized by Shrine Rector Guerra, Father Jacques Dupuis and Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald explained that dialogue does not mean working to convert those outside the Catholic Church to Catholicism. Rather, dialogue is a means for all religions to work together in harmony, and to make a "Christian a better Christian and a Hindu a better Hindu," as Jacques Dupuis said in his lecture that was applauded by Shrine Rector Guerra.

By contrast, Our Lady of Fatima said that She wanted Russia solemnly consecrated, by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Pope in union with the world’s bishops on the same day, promising that if this is done, Russia would be converted — that is, converted to the Catholic Faith.

This is fitting, since infallible dogma from the Council of Florence teaches, in union with the consistent teaching of the Popes and Saints throughout Church history, that members of the Orthodox Church must convert to the Catholic Church for their own salvation. A dialogue that denies the need for conversion of non-Catholics is contrary to the Message of Fatima, contrary to the Catholic Faith.

Non-existent "Progress"

The dialogue that Rector Guerra claims is "progressing slowly" is not really progressing at all. This is because today’s ecumenism is not actually a union of religions, but a pan-religious union of the liberals and lefties within the various denominations. "Ecumenical Catholics" know full well that they will get nowhere with those members of denominations who believe their religion to possess the truth. Rather, they engage with the progressivist members of the various sects whose first concern is that we all get along.

This is why the Vatican could not sign a Lutheran-Catholic Accord with conservative Missouri Synod Lutherans, who rightly denounced the document as a sham. No, it signed the Lutheran-Catholic Accord with the pro-abortion Lutherans who "ordain" women bishops. Yet all the while we are told of Vatican II’s great strides in achieving ecumenical unity.

But this is not the case. Witness, for example, the fact that the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church will not allow Pope John Paul II to enter Russia, and denounced the Pope’s closed-circuit television broadcast into his country as an "invasion of Russia."4 Witness the public protest by the Greek Orthodox on May 4, 2001, against the Pope’s visit to Athens. It was here that schismatic priests denounced the papacy through megaphones; priests and monks rang church bells as a symbol of mourning and carried black balloons to the Athens square; and hoisted banners denouncing the Pope as Antichrist as the cry rang out, "Pope Go Home!"5

Witness the similar protest held during the Pope’s visit to the Ukraine. On June 28, 2001, large demonstrations were led by schismatic Orthodox priests wherein schismatic nuns carried the banner, "Invitation of the Pope to the Ukraine is a knife in the back of the Orthodox people." Here too, the Pope was denounced as Antichrist.6

Thus, the ecumenical "progress" referred to by Rector Guerra is virtually non-existent.

Lastly, it is wrong for Catholics to engage in a smiling dialogue that leaves members of the Orthodox religion entrapped in their religion’s errors. It was Pope Saint Pius X who indicated that, in the objective order, members of the Orthodox religion are not only schismatics, but also heretics, because they refuse to accept, 1) the processions of Persons in the Trinity; 2) the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady; 3) Papal Infallibility as defined at Vatican Council I; 4), the Petrine Primacy.7 Members of the Orthodox religion must abandon these errors and convert to the truths of the Catholic Faith for their own salvation. This squares with the Message of Fatima, for the conversion of the Russian Orthodox will take place miraculously — and on a grand scale — when Russia is finally consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Yet Rector Guerra has the audacity to claim that the Message of Fatima calls us to a "dialogue" that denounces the necessity of the conversion of non-Catholics.

Our Lady said, "God wants to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart," not "God wants to establish in the world ecumenical dialogue that leaves souls in the darkness of their false religion." Yet this madness is precisely what Rector Guerra asserts.

Catholic-Muslim Dialogue?
Fatima: A Call for

Next, Rector Guerra claims that the Fatima Message is a call for a similar dialogue with Mohammedans. He writes:

"One year after the apparitions of the Angel, Our Lady chose the Cova da Iria [Iria’s Hole (sic)] as a place where to appear. She knew beforehand that this unknown place would come to be called more easily Fatima, since it was located within the limits of the only parish, the only town, that in Portugal bears the name of the daughter of Mohammed, the founder of Islam. Right next to Fatima there were other towns with Christian names, which Our Lady could have chosen. Well, She knew beforehand that, in such circumstances, Her choice would often remind us of the Muslim religion, which the Arabs certainly practiced here before the Christian re-conquest. Our Lady knew that the human being pays a lot of attention to coincidences and therefore, sooner or later, would reflect on this coincidence of Her apparitions with the name of the daughter of Mohammed."

Rector Guerra goes on to suggest that this is Heaven’s way of telling us that we must engage in dialogue with Muslims. Contrary to Rector Guerra’s assertion, however, Christopher Ferrara explains:

"The village of Fatima was named after a Muslim princess who, following her capture by Christian forces during the Moorish occupation of Portugal, was smitten by the Count of Ourem, converted to Catholicism, and was baptized before marrying the Count in 1158. Her baptismal name was Oureana, but her birth name had been Fatima, after the daughter of Mohammed. The naming of the village of Fatima is thus a testament, not to ‘inter-religious dialogue’, but to the triumph of Christendom over the Muslim occupiers of Portugal (a process that required another century to complete)."8

Thus again, we see that this aspect of Fatima, if anything, spotlights conversion. It cannot be interpreted to justify a "dialogue" that reveres Muslims though they corrupt Divine truth; honors their religion though it rejects Christ’s Divinity; smiles at them as they denounce the Blessed Trinity in their Koran; assures them that there’s no need to convert to the one true Church for salvation; and invites them to join with Catholics, Hindus, Jews, Buddhists and Animists to build a pan-religious "Civilization of Love."

Keep in mind that Rector Guerra is the same man who applauded the modernist Father Jacques Dupuis, who said at the recent Fatima Congress, "There is no need to invoke here that horrible text from the Council of Florence," concerning no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Dupuis, with Guerra’s approval, exhorted his audience to reject defined Catholic dogma. It is little wonder that Rector Guerra attempts to subvert the Fatima Message to his distorted, pan-religious vision.

"We Are Still Very Far"?

How would you respond if you were asked whether or not you would ever join in pan-religious prayers with Hindus? If you are truly Catholic, faithful to the perennial teaching and practice of the Church, your answer would be "Never." This is a fitting response, since Scripture tells us that the "gods of the heathens are devils." (Psalm 95:5) If you were asked whether your own house would ever be used for Hindu worship, again, you would insist, "Never"! Or perhaps, to stress the impossibility of the scheme, you might exclaim, "over my dead body."

Yet this is not how Rector Guerra responded when he discussed the alleged pan-religious Shrine with Spirit Daily, a web page dedicated to the false apparitions of Medjugorje.9

Rector Guerra said in this interview, "our ecumenism is just beginning. It is guided by guidelines set by the Church authorities." He also claimed that "ecumenism does not play into the design for the new basilica", which will be located away from the present Fatima basilica. Spirit Daily asked if the Rector has any concerns that ecumenism might lead to compromise or to a tinge of the New Age. It also asked how is it that Hindus and Muslims, etc., will pray there. Mgr. Guerra responded, "We do not fear any ecumenism led by the Church. We are very far from having Hindus or any Muslims pray in Fatima, except if they do it in private — not in public liturgies or other such services."

We are "very far" from having Hindus or any Muslims pray at Fatima?

Why did he phrase his answer this way? Why did he not state emphatically what any self-respecting Catholic would say: "Never! Never will they be allowed to perform their pagan rituals on Catholic property in my care."10

We learn the answer by taking a closer look at Rector Guerra’s statement.

First, he says "our ecumenism is just beginning." This, of course, was manifest at the 2003 pan-religious Fatima Congress that I attended. And from what I saw, they’re off to a flying start. For it was here that Orthodox, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu representatives were invited to address the audience about the importance of their various religious "sanctuaries." It was here that non-Catholics were told that there is no need for them to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation.11

Rector Guerra then says, "Ecumenism does not play into the design of the new basilica." Yet this is no reassurance that pan-religious meetings will not be staged there. The church of San Pietro at Assisi was not "designed for ecumenism," yet on October 27, 1986, at the Assisi pan-religious gathering,12 "Buddhists, led by the Dalai Lama, quickly converted the altar of the church of San Pietro by placing a small statue of the Buddha atop the tabernacle and setting prayer scrolls and incense burners around it."13

The other churches and holy places at Assisi were likewise farmed out for use by Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, and African snake worshipers to perform their false, idolatrous rituals. Ecumenism certainly did not "play into the design" of any of these churches when they were built, yet they were all commandeered for pan-religious usage.

Likewise, since the Assisi event, we see increasing instances of Catholic churches desecrated by pan-religious gatherings. Here are but two examples:

  • On October 28, 1987, fifty representatives of the world’s religions gathered at a church in Rome to pray for peace. The gathering marked the first anniversary of the 1986 World Day of Peace at Assisi. Jews, Sikhs, Moslems, Orthodox Greeks, Roman Catholics and various Protestant denominations met in the 12th Century church of Santa Maria.14

  • On September 9, 1998, John Cardinal O’Connor of New York hosted an inter-religious service at St. Patrick’s Cathedral "to pray for decent housing for the poor and homeless." On the altar in a large semi-circle were representatives from Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodoxy, Islam and Judaism. The religious leaders were invited by Cardinal O’Connor to the prayer service at which an estimated 2,500 people attended. At this event, the Cardinal lectured, a rabbi prayed in Hebrew, a young woman in a mini-skirt sang "This Little Light of Mine." Candles were lit throughout the congregations and then were "dramatically" raised after several lack-luster choruses of "We Shall Overcome." The final "blessing" was given by an Irish Presbyterian.15
  • We could fill the next five pages of this journal with similar examples and still not exhaust the reservoir. The point, however, is that these and other churches were used — and are used — for pan-religious riots even though ecumenism did not "play into the design" of their construction.

    There is only one assurance Fatima authorities can give that these types of pan-religious incidents will not occur at Fatima, and that is a public guarantee that all ecumenical activity at Fatima will completely cease. This they are not willing to do.

    Quite to the contrary, Rector Guerra boasts that the ecumenical initiative at Fatima is now underway, that ecumenism "is guided by guidelines set by Church authorities", and that "we do not fear any ecumenism led by the Church."

    So let’s take a look at the ecumenical "guidelines" set by present-day Church authorities and determine if there’s anything to fear. Let’s see what today’s Church leaders promote in the name of ecumenism, and ask ourselves if we are glad to envision such exhibitions enacted at Fatima.

    "Approved" Absurdities

    The ecumenism promoted by today’s post-Conciliar leaders, as said earlier, would have horrified any pre-Vatican II Pope. Take for example the 1993 Directory for the Application of the Principle and Norms of Ecumenism, from the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity.

    This Directory "mandates" ecumenism into every aspect of Church life, and encourages numerous unprecedented interfaith practices that have always been condemned by the Church as grave sins against Faith.

    The Directory:

  • allows Protestants to conduct the readings (except the Gospel) in a Catholic Church [#133]
  • encourages common "spiritual exercises" and "retreats" between Catholics and Protestants [#114]
  • allows non-Catholics to lecture in seminaries [#81]
  • commands that young children be taught ecumenism in the schools [#68]
  • mandates ecumenism for priests and religious in their years of formation [#’s 51, 70]
  • commands priests to take part in the "continuous aggiornamento" of ecumenical teaching and practice [#91]
  • encourages diocesan bishops to lend their parish churches to non-Catholics for their prayer services [#137]
  • promotes interdenominational prayer-services among Catholics and Protestants in each other’s churches [#112]
  • encourages the joint publication of an interdenominational Bible between Catholics and Protestants [#185]
  • discourages Catholics from attempting to convert non-Catholics [#’s 23, 79, 81, 125]
  • encourages Catholics to "rejoice in the grace of God" [sic] in Protestants [#206]
  • recommends the construction of a single church to be owned and used by both Catholics and non-Catholics [#138]
  • further recommends that in these joint churches, the Blessed Sacrament be placed in a separate chapel or room so as not to offend non-believers. [#139]
  • This document was produced under the leadership of Cardinal Edward Idris Cassidy, who was then Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity. Cardinal Cassidy’s successor is Cardinal Walter Kasper, who could be aptly described as the quintessential lunatic modernist clergyman — a man who doesn’t seem to believe in anything.

    Cardinal Kasper is on record as telling Jews that the Old Covenant is still in force, and that they do not have to convert to the Catholic Church for salvation.16 Cardinal Cassidy and Baltimore’s Cardinal Keeler said the same thing,17 even though Scripture and defined Church doctrine teach infallibly that the Old Covenant is no longer in force and has been superseded by the New.18

    Cardinal Kasper is the Vatican’s point man in dialogue with Protestants, Orthodox and Jews. It is he who provides the ecumenical "guidance" in which Rector Guerra claims we should place blind trust.

    Do you feel safe being guided by the ecumenism of these men who defy Scripture and dogma? Rector Guerra does, but I do not.

    Cardinal Kasper also said recently that Vatican II and Ut Unum Sint, "acknowledge explicitly that the Holy Spirit is operating in the other Churches and church communities. Consequently, there is no idea of an arrogant claim to a monopoly of salvation." He compounded the outrage saying:

    "Several aspects of being church are better realized in other churches. Therefore, ecumenism is no one-way street, but a reciprocal learning process, or, as stated in Ut Unum Sint, an exchange of gifts. The way to unity is therefore not the return of others into the fold of the Catholic Church."19

    Tragically, Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, is of the same heretical opinion. In 1966, in defiance of the thrice-defined dogma "outside the Church there is no salvation", Father Ratzinger rejoiced that, thanks to Vatican II, the idea of conversion of non-Catholics has been replaced by the concept of convergence with non-Catholics.20 This is an indication of Cardinal Ratzinger’s present mind-set, as he has repeatedly said that his ideas "have not changed" since the time of the Council.21

    No Catholic parent worth his salt would allow his children to be guided by such men. Yet Rector Guerra expresses no such reservation, but alleges that we have "nothing to fear" from wrong-headed leadership that suddenly blesses what the Church always condemned.

    "Approved" Pagan Enculturation

    Looking further at the "ecumenism guided" by today’s progressivist guidelines, we behold the continuing horrors of pagan religious ritual incorporated into Catholic ceremonies. I personally witnessed, at World Youth Day 2002, a screaming, thump-thump-thumping Native American pagan ritual that opened WYD’s Sunday Papal Mass!22 Then there’s the inculturation of voodoo practices in the Catholic Church in Africa.23 Then there’s the Hindu dance of arati and puja — a dance to the demon gods of Hinduism, — which was performed within the beatification Mass of Mother Teresa on October 19, 2003.24 Again, we could give scores of similar examples.

    We see, then, how this "guided ecumenism" looks. It is an ecumenism guided, not by perennial Catholic teaching and practice, but by progressivists in high places who are determined to remake the Church into their own liberal image and likeness. It is this "ecumenism" that Rector Guerra boasts is "just beginning" at Fatima.

    Now we understand why Rector Guerra will not categorically affirm that Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims will never be permitted to perform their religious rituals on Church property at Fatima. To do so would contradict that new ecumenical program. It would defy the hideous policy of enculturation, and close Fatima’s gates against the revolutionary pan-religious "Spirit of Assisi" that has been inflicted on Catholics since the Council. Thus, he leaves the gate open with his "we are very far" statement.

    Conclusion

    We observe from Rector Guerra’s words that the ecumenical orientation is well underway at Fatima. He even tries to bend the Fatima Message to this warped, ecumenical pattern. As far as he is concerned, Catholics who oppose ecumenism have no right to do so.

    Thus, as I said in previous articles, it doesn’t matter whether the grotesque, modernist basilica to be built at Fatima is officially called an "Interfaith Shrine" or not. As long as the Fatima authorities accept the new ecumenical orientation, and open wide the doors for the "Spirit of Assisi" — as they already did at the 2003 Fatima Congress — it is only a matter of time before pan-religious ceremonies at Fatima take place.

    Rector Guerra was derelict in his duty to hold the Fatima Congress, to extol its outrages, and to criticize those Catholics who resist the hideous novelty of pan-religious ecumenism. He applauded when Father Arul Irudayam, of India, told the audience that Hindus now perform their pagan rituals inside the Catholic Marian Shrine Basilica in Vailankanni.25 He also applauded Jacques Dupuis’ denunciations of defined dogma, and never apologized for allowing blatant heresy to be taught at Fatima.

    Rector Guerra is complicit in the vandalization of Sacred Doctrine. It will do him no good, as he did in his recent Communique, to present himself to the world as a slandered innocent.

    Footnotes:

    1. See: http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/sprep111303.asp, see also: The Fatima Crusader, Issue 75, pp. 16ff.

    2. The October 24 Notícias de Fátima, a local paper on friendly terms with the Fatima Shrine, quoted Rector Guerra’s interfaith aims: “This proposal of coexistence also in Fatima of a religious pluralism is still embryonic,” said Rector Guerra. “It’s the first step. We are like the engineers in Portugal who begin by examining the structures of the bridges to see if we can trust them in the future.” The Fatima Shrine’s December 28 Communiqués say that the only time the Shrine Rector spoke at the Congress was at the final session of the Congress and 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’ 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; a Shrine that seems already vacationed, 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.”

    3. “Shrine of All Religions: Communiqué from the Rectory of the Shrine at Fatima”, www.Santuario-fatima.pt/communique.html — I have learned that Rector Guerra now simply directs people to this web page when they ask about the "interfaith Shrine."

    4. “Russian Patriarch Slams Pope’s video Link-up as ‘invasion’,” BBC News, March 2, 2002.

    5. Photo documented in Previews of the New Papacy, Atila Sinke Guimarães and Marian Horvat, (Los Angeles: Tradition in Action, 2001) p. 146.

    6. Ibid., pp. 160-1.

    7. See Ex quo, by Pope Saint Pius X, December 26, 1910.

    8. “A New Fatima for a New Church”, part I, Christopher Ferrara, The Fatima Crusader, Winter 2004. Rector Guerra half concedes this in his December 28 Communiqué saying, “That would be the case, even though, as some historians think possible, the name of the village of Fatima may not have anything to do with the daughter of the founder of Islam.” Nonetheless, Rector Guerra still insists on his “inter-religious dialogue” interpretation.

    9. A fuller treatment of Medjugorje, including the evidence that the Medjugorje "seers" lied to their bishop while under Oath, is contained in the lecture "Flights of Fancy to Great Apostasy: Medjugorje and More" by John Vennari (available for $6.00 postpaid from Oltyn Library Services, 2316 Delaware Ave., PMB 325, Buffalo, NY 14216).

    10. Note: If an individual Muslim or Hindu comes to the Shrine to pray quietly, this is something that cannot be stopped, nor should it be. An individual non-Catholic coming to a Marian Shrine such as Fatima may even be granted the grace of conversion for doing so, if the individual is seeking God with a pure heart.

    11. See: "Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine? An Account from One Who Was There", see footnote #1.

    12. On October 27, 1986, at the invitation of John Paul II, 160 leaders of the world’s religions gathered at Assisi, Italy to pray for peace. It was an unprecedented event that ran contrary to 2,000 years of Catholic doctrine and practice. Of this Assisi prayer meeting, chief Vatican spokesman Joaquin Navarro-Valls, exclaimed with apparent approval, "Nothing like this has ever happened in the history of mankind." The 12 religions represented at the Assisi prayer meeting were: African animists, American Indians, Bahais, Buddhists, "Christians", Jains, Jews, Hindus, Moslems, Shintoists, Sikhs, and Zoroastrians.

    13. Robert Suro, “12 Faiths Join Pope to Pray for Peace”, New York Times, October 28, 1986.

    14. “50 World Religious Leaders Meet in Rome and Pray for Peace”, Reuters, August 4, 1987.

    15. Sources: Charles Bell, “Invited by O'Connor to Pray for the Poor”, New York Daily News, September 4, 1998; “Lift Up the Poor With The Voices of Faith” (Program from Interfaith Prayer Service at St. Patrick’s); “Do We Care?”, Catholic New York, September 17, 1998. Also, eyewitness report sent to Catholic Family News from a friend who attended the interfaith event as an observer.

    16. Cardinal Walter Kasper, speaking as the papally appointed President of the Pontifical Council for Religious Relations with the Jews, declared that “the old theory of substitution is gone since the Second Vatican Council”. For us Christians today, the covenant with the Jewish people is a living heritage, a living reality … Therefore, the Church believes that Judaism, i.e., the faithful response of the Jewish people to God’s irrevocable covenant, is salvific for them, because God is faithful to His promises.” — Address at the 17th meeting of the International Catholic-Jewish Liaison Committee, New York, May 1, 2001.

    17. See “Interview with Robert Sungenis”, Catholic Family News, November, 2002.

    18. See Hebrews, 8:13. The doctrine of the supersession of the Old Testament by the New is a defined article of the Catholic Faith. In the solemn Profession of Faith of the Ecumenical Council of Florence under Pope Eugenius IV, it is set forth: “The sacrosanct Roman Church … firmly believes, professes, and teaches that the matter pertaining to the Old Testament, of the Mosaic law, which are divided into ceremonies, sacred rites, sacrifices, and sacraments, because they were established to signify something in the future, although they were suited to the divine worship at that tie, after our Lord’s coming had been signified by them, ceased, and the sacraments of the New Testament began; … All, therrefore, who after that time observe circumcision and the Sabbath and the other requirements of the law, it (the Roman Church) declares alien to the Christian faith and not in the least fit to participate in eternal esalvation, unless someday they recover from these errors. (D.S. 1348)

    19. Quoted from “Fanfare, Tillard, and Ecumenism in Rome”, Paul A. Crow, Jr., Ecumenical Trents, (Published by the Graymoor Friars) September 2003, p. 15. (Emphasis added.)

    20. Father Ratzinger said, “The Catholic Church has no right to absorb the other Churches … [A] basic unity — of Churches that remain Churches, yet become one Church — must replace the idea of conversion, even though conversion retains its meaningfulness for those in conscience motivated to seek it.” (Emphasis added) Theological Highlights of Vatican II, Joseph Ratzinger [Paulist Press, New York, 1966], pp. 65-66. This section of the book focuses on the deliberate ecumenical foundation on which is based the Council document Lumen Gentium. For a more complete discussion of Father Ratzinger’s book, see “Vatican II vs. the Unity Willed by Christ”, by J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, December 2000. [Reprint #537 available from CFN for $1.75 post-paid].

    21. Vittorio Messori presented the following in Jesus magazine: “Perhaps what is most annoying is the fact that the supposed ‘guardian of the faith’ in reality has not only the stature of a great theologian … but also of an open, modern theologian, open to the signs of the times. A perito of the German episcopate at Vatican II, he is later found among the founders of Concilium, an international magazine, that brings together the so-called ‘progressivist wing’ of Catholic theology. ‘Was it a sin of youth, Your Eminence, this engagement with Concilium?’ I asked him joshing. ‘Absolutely not,’ he answered. ‘I did not change, they changed’.” (J. Ratzinger, interview with Vittorio Messori, “Ecco perché la fede é in crisi”, Jesus, November 1984, p. 69.) Further, during a visit to Brazil in 1990, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to the press on the same subject. Question: “What are the most marked differences between the Ratzinger of Vatican II and the Ratzinger of today? Who has changed more, you or the Church? Answer: I do not see a real, profound difference between my work at Vatican Council II and my present work.” (Interview with Walter Falceta, “Ratzinger reafirma identidade católica”, in O Estado de S. Paulo, 7/29/1990). These and other similar quotations are compiled in In the Murky Waters of Vatican II, Atila Sinke Guimarães, (Metaire: Maeta, 1997) pp. 121-2.

    22. “The World Youth Day Sleep-Over”, J. Vennari, Catholic Family News, October 2002.

    23. “Dancing with the Devil: The New Evangelization in Africa”, Craig Heimbichner, Catholic Family News, December 2003.

    24. See “Mother Terresa ‘Beatified’ with Idolatrous Rites”, Cornelia Ferreira, Catholic Family News, December 2003.

    25. This is detailed in "Fatima to Become an Interfaith Shrine? An Account from One Who was There," John Vennari, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 75, p. 16. See also footnote #1.

    Table of Contents