|
Newsletter of the District of Asia Jan - June 2004 Are
Indian Seminaries still Catholic?
First Testimony It was in the evening of 29th June, 1997 that I entered St Pius X College (Diocesan Seminary of Bombay Diocese in India) with great joy and enthusiasm not knowing that in the near future I would have to leave it in the circumstances that happened. This Seminary which was built prior to the II Vatican Council (1962-1965) is known as the ‘Ideal Seminary’ in the whole of India, and for this reason the bishops of other dioceses prefer to send their seminarians to this Seminary so that they can get an ‘All Round Formation’— for which the seminary was quite well known. In that seminary a priest was defined as a community builder. By this, one can very easily understand that the priest has to do all these things, which a community needs for its development. For example, picnics, parties and social activities. By defining it so, the Catholic Faith — if any of it remains — becomes so insignificant that it is hardly noticeable. The following list gives only a few illustrations by which the Catholic Faith was either minimized or ‘indifferentiated’, and then finally destroyed in a very tactful, deceitful manner. 1) The Rosary regarded as a prayer of the illiterates The Liturgy Professor, Fr. Aniceto Nazareth, narrated the source, origin and development of the rosary in the following words:
The seminarians after listening to this narration were startled and deeply scandalized, and as result of such teaching, gave up praying the rosary. 2) The Holy Bible treated as a purely fictitious book with a profound message. Fr. Vincent Pereira who was in charge of the First year of Seminary Formation regarded Psychology as the most reliable and authentic knowledge. First he told us about the various incidents of his life; then after a few days he asked us to write these down. After saying this he added that if we did write about his life then he would certainly get different stories from different seminarians. Likewise, the Gospels were written down many years after the death of Our Lord. Firstly he said, it was the gospel of Mark which was written in 65 AD, then it was the Gospel of Matthew, written in 80 AD, then that of Luke written in 85 AD, and lastly the Gospel of St John written in 90 AD. These considerations made the Bible just like any other book but with a message which no other book carries. The result of this was that seminarians who once had reverence to the Holy Bible lost it completely. After all it was the priest, a man of God, who was telling them such things. 3) Ideas on Hell God is believed to be a God of unconditional, boundless, fatherly love. If He can send His only begotten Son to suffer and die for humanity then why would He punish human beings to hell? 4) Views on the Resurrection Life on earth is treated like the rest. Everything begins with life on earth and everything ends with death on earth. The idea of heaven is treated like a pie in the sky or a consoling word for suffering mankind. If Christ did rise from the dead then why didn’t the two disciples of Emmaus recognize him instantly? Since in our day to day life we do experience death and resurrection, for instance with our joys and sorrows, happiness and sadness, hope and despair, the resurrection of Christ has hardly anything to offer us. 5) Views on the Virginity of Our Lady This was dealt in Mariology by Fr. Agnels Gracias who is now a bishop. He was well known for his spiritual talks, conferences and retreats. He was regarded as a great devotee of Our Lady. He was very often seen in his cassock and reciting the rosary. His pedagogy in teaching was to entreat answers from his students. For example, one time he mentioned the prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 (new translation), “Behold a woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel.” Then he said that Matthew the evangelist had changed the word woman to virgin in the following, Mt.1:23, “Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel, which means ‘God is with us’.” After the scriptural evidence he resorted to Tradition, which said that Our Lady took the vow of virginity at the age of 5. This Tradition he discarded by historical evidence which said that barrenness was regarded as an evil, and hence no Jewish women would ever think of remaining a virgin. Then coming to the point of the matter he said that virginity was divided into the following categories: a) Physical Virginity, b) Mental Virginity, c) Spiritual Virginity.
After hearing such things from a Catholic priest the students were dumbfounded. Conclusion Having discovered Catholic Tradition by the sheer grace of God through Our Blessed Lady, while being in such an un-Catholic seminary, we cannot but remind ourselves of the words of St. Paul who said “Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ” (Col. 2:8). We surely lived these words in Bombay Seminary! Let us remain with Christ ‘for in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead corporally.’ (Col. 2:9). And may Our Lady always guide and protect us in this valley of tears. Gregory Noronha Second Testimony Introduction St. Paul in Ephesians chapter 4, exhorts the Ephesians to conduct themselves as members of Christ’s mystical body. Hence, the Church is Christ’s Mystical body. And the Seminary is called the ‘heart’ of the diocese. If this heart pumps bad blood, the whole body shall suffer harm. Indeed so, this is exactly the situation of the seminaries all over the world as it was in our seminary in Bombay. The Cardinal of Bombay calls the seminary, the ‘apple of his eye’ and yet this ‘apple’ though it looked red and well-grown from the outside, was infected and eaten by worms of heresy from within. These worms of heresies were the priests and professors of the seminary who were raving modernists, having ‘itching ears’ and ‘profane babbling of tongues’ as Holy Scripture attributes to false doctors. The Sacred Scripture in 2 Tim. 3:1-8 characterises these men of depraved mind as “lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, wicked, without affection, without peace, slanderers, incontinent, unmerciful, without kindness, traitors, stubborn, puffed up, and lovers of pleasure more than of God: Having an appearance indeed of godliness but denying the power thereof; (…) led away with divers desires: Ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. (they) also resist the truth, men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith.” It is time that we take St. Paul’s warning seriously concerning the depraved men of our times, who are occupying the high places in authority. And much more of those in charge of forming priests, about whom Our Lord Himself pronounces judgement and woe in Mt. 23:15 – “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte. And when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.” This woe from Our Lord is truly applicable to these depraved formators in the seminaries of today – for they do everything to gain vocations through vocational centres, yet through their profane babbling and deceitful humane appearances, ‘seduce’ young minds slowly but surely in the years of formation (or rather ‘deformation’) turning out these vocations to make of them ‘sons of hell’ twofold more than the formators themselves as aptly described by Our Lord Himself, so that these young priests in turn become Pharisees: “you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you yourselves do not enter in and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.” (Matt. 23:13). An elderly priest once told me that “it may be that the young priests of today in the Novus Ordo have the intention of doing what the Church has always done!” Well, it isn’t so simple, for the intention to do what the Church has always done, requires that the intentions of the priests be formed in the seminaries and founded on the rock of Catholic doctrine, which is too far from being a reality. In this, I shall provide a Conspectus of the Academics in the Bombay Seminary, mainly in theology, not forgetting to mention that the philosophy taught in our seminary was Existentialism, Phenomenology, Indian Philosophy, Pragmatism, and not St. Thomas Aquinas as decreed by the Great Popes of happy memories such as Leo XIII and St. Pius X. It is on such a foundation as of ‘sinking sand’ that the edifice of contextual theology was built. ‘Studying’ theology was contrasted with ‘doing’ Theology. Seminarians were given a 10-day seminar at the beginning of theology on ‘Contextual Theology’ with the aim of a total ripping away of the ‘Supernatural’ from the study of God, which is essentially the content of Theology [Theos-God, logos-study]. St. Thomas Aquinas (Ia, q.1 a.7) teaches the following about theology: “(since) all matters treated in Sacred doctrine are viewed under the aspect of the Deity either because they are God Himself or because they have a relationship to God as their beginning or goal, it follows that God is in very truth the subject matter of this science.” The theology in the Bombay Seminary is far from being the supernatural science as has been well defined by the Angelic Doctor. It is completely naturalised and horizontalized, to begin and end in ‘this-worldly’ experience of ‘this-life’ (with ‘eternal life’ forgotten, if not erased). And therefore the modernists talk of ‘doing theology’ and as a natural consequence of such a ‘doing’, seminarians are sent to Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO’s) to get in ‘touch with reality’, to mingle with those non-Catholic atheistic, sometimes perverse social workers who themselves have loose morals and broken, disintegrated family life. The seminarians are then fed with the Marxist agenda of ‘classless society’ with rebellion against legislative authority in the Church as well as in the State, sowing in them seeds of the ‘revolution’ against God’s natural Order. Peace and serenity of recollected religious life is now replaced with agitation and dissipation of mundane concerns of the world in the disguise of striving for social justice and ecumenism, supposedly to create “communal harmony” – another proof of the ‘depravity’ of the modernist mind. I shall provide a few samples of modernist academics that demonstrate clearly the complete loss of faith and movement towards the Great Apostasy. With the background of ‘contextual theology’, let us now go deeper into the theological trends which are logical consequences of contextualised theology, i.e., Naturalism, Religious Indifferentism and ultimately creating a Masonic mindset in the seminarians. At this point, I am reminded of Our Lord’s parable in which “the enemy came, while the men were asleep and sowed cockle amid the wheat and went his way.” (Matt. 13:24). Reading into this parable coming from the sacred lips of Our Lord, we can see the ‘cockle’ which today is the “Masonic” mindset that the enemy of God sows in the young minds thus destroying the good seed of Catholicism in the field of God, which is the Catholic Church. 1. Christology Christology is the first field of study that we shall examine. We were given a theological tract on the very person of Our Blessed Lord. The modernists teach their perverse doctrine as follows:- “Jesus is One but Christologies are many” – Diversity of Christological spotlights blend with the “blinding light of Easter proclamation” – interpret the Christ-event in response to various contexts and needs of the community. Vatican II contributed to the growth of variety of Christologies such as Liberation Christology, Inclusive Christology, Black Christology, Tribal Christology etc. In this respect, ‘Theocentrism’ is preferred to ‘Christocentrism’ – where ‘God is the centre, not Christ’. (This is called by modernist theologian as “Copernican revolution in theology”). This modernist doctrine on Christology has many diverse implications that are the foundations of many other modern errors. 1. ‘Diversity of Christological spotlights blend(ing)’ depicts “Perspectivism”, thus downplaying the person of Our Lord and reducing the Gospels to mere perspectives and ‘faithreflections’ of the community according to its context and needs. This is an attempt to downplay the Divinity of Our Lord and reduce all his supernatural works to naturalism. Hence the outcome is as many ‘Christologies’ (perspectives) as there are people. Therefore Liberation Christology, Black Christology, Tribal Christology etc. No objective Truth but truth is made ‘perspectival’, i.e., relative. 2. ‘Theocentrism is preferred to Christocentrism, whereby God is the centre, not Christ.’ Therefore Christ can be normative or one among many different ways to God. – This is Religious Indifferentism, condemned by Gregory XVI in Mirari Vos, by Leo XIII in Humanum Genus and by Pius IX in Quanta Cura and in his Syllabus of Errors. ‘Religious Indifferentism’ is now practiced and made ‘sacrosanct’ by Vatican II that speaks of God’s presence and revelation in other religions : ‘seeds of the word’ (Ad Gentes 11, 15), ‘Reflections of the say of truth’ (Nostra Aetate 2) are proofs of this error of Religious Indifferentism practiced openly through inter-religious dialogue, inculturation and other Ecumenical practices. 3) Modern theologians such as Edward Schillebeeckx who perceives ‘experience as the medium of God’s revelation’ teach that the Christologizing process began from Jesus’ own ‘experience’ and the ‘experience’ of his followers of his presence. The disciples underwent a deep conversion after the death of Jesus and ‘experienced’ themselves as being forgiven and recommitted themselves to the Kingdom of God because they ‘sensed’ his risen presence – the saving presence of Christ in the community. Unless the message of the Kingdom of God is intrinsic to One Christology, the possibilities are great that we find ourselves admiring a ‘divine icon’ and thus making a new ideology out of Christology itself.” “The Kingdom of God Jesus proclaimed should be spelled out first in terms of what it means to be truly ‘human’… The crucifixion is thus the climax of human injustice – ‘social injustice’…. This is the holistic understanding of salvation.” (Rather ‘hollowistic’ !!!) St. Pius X in Pascendi (1907) clearly describes the modernist according to principles as “a summary of experiences ” – thus though asserting a general inspiration of the sacred books, they admit no inspiration in the Catholic understanding. [Section on Holy Scripture]. The above quotation from Schillebeekx speaks of the apostles ‘sensing’ Christ’s risen presence – another ambiguity deliberately devised to downplay the reality of Our Lord’s bodily resurrection. This too, has been condemned by St. Pius X while he pointed the errors of ‘religious sense’ [a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God] combined with other fallacies opening wide the way to ‘Atheism’. Pope Pius VI in Auctorem Fidei (August 28, 1794) teaches that “One must condemn heretical statements as they appear, despite what contradictions and ambiguities they are camouflaged in.” He further warns us that “those who let heresies slip by because they are veiled in wilful ambiguity, cannot be excused and allow the faith to be led by subtle errors to their eternal damnation.” 4. Liberation theology (i) One of the statements of modernist Christology was – “Jesus was a middle-class man, who became an outcast by choice. John the Baptist preached to sinners. Jesus identified Himself with sinners.” This is a completely Marxist interpretation of the very person of Our Divine Lord reducing Him to a social class, and depicting Him as a revolutionary. (ii) “The Kingdom of God is that God would one day banish all injustices and misery from this life. It is a kingdom of the poor not of the rich, a kingdom where no one will be left out.” The Kingdom of God is thus reduced to a this-worldly reality, to Marx’s classless society. This is the error of Naturalism. (iii) “The Kingdom of God for Jesus is one where no one will be treated as inferior but will receive full recognition as human being.” This is horizontalized Christology, again the error of Naturalism. (iv) “It is impossible that Jesus did miracles – but for Jesus, everything was miraculous, for he lived in a world full of God. Jesus is not interested in the mechanics of the miracle, he sees it as a ‘sign’ of the Kingdom of God.” What is that ‘sign’, and of what kind of Kingdom of God or classless society is it a sign? There is nothing supernatural about it. (v) “Jesus shared the world-view of his people and times, therefore he ‘saw’ the devil at work in physical illness as well as psychological sicknesses.” Denial of the existence of Satan and the devils; rejection of Hell, and the Son of God is reduced to a mere human being completely conditioned by his time and culture – A clear heresy!!! (vi) “A contextualised question for reflection – If Jesus were preaching in India today, what kind of kingdom would he preached?” This question makes explicit the contextual theology of the modernists. It means everything i.e. the Gospels, Tradition in fact, the whole faith changes according to time and space! (vii) “At the heart of Jesus’ message was not orthodoxy but orthopraxis. That message of incarnation is that we find God in our brothers and sisters.” A humanised message of incarnation – Masonic! (viii) “Jesus’ death is a logical consequence of his preaching. In faith, we see his death as ‘salvific’. For instance, two men went to Calvary one Friday afternoon – one saw a Jew dying; another saw God redeeming…” This statement is clearly perspectivism – “we see Christ’s death as salvific” But in reality….? (ix) “Did Jesus foresee his death? Probably… from all growing opposition. Was He aware of his resurrection? Hardly possible – otherwise it knocks the pain of death. What He is sure of is his Supreme Confidence that God would vindicate Him. This is translated by the Evangelists in terms of the Resurrection.” This is an implicit denial of Our Lord’s divinity and hence, of his Omniscience. The Resurrection is made a subjective experience for the disciples. The Resurrection, they say, is not a past memory of something that happened, it is that Jesus is a living person, and I commit myself to a living person. Again we see a humanised, anthropocentric interpretation. (x) “The message of the Resurrection – we find Jesus today, not the Jesus of the past, but in Sacred Scripture, in the breaking of bread, in fellowships, in daily events and celebrations.” This is a denial of the continuity of the Divine person of Our Lord, a Protestant understanding of Christ’s presence. (xi) The modernists say that all the titles of Jesus evolved as centuries passed. The community in the early centuries never thought of Jesus as God; it was only after breaking away from Judaism in 70 A.D. that divinity was ‘attributed’ to Him and Christian forms of liturgical worships developed. Hence in Jesus, the modernists assert that God taking a human face, he takes everything human — this leads to an incarnational spirituality, therefore we need to take the ‘human’ as our centre. Thus we see a fervent attack on the very person of Our Divine Lord. Everything, including Sacred Scripture and Tradition, is twisted and reduced to naturalised secular humanism, ultimately a Freemasonic interpretation, hence a total loss and deterioration of Catholic faith and theology. II. Mariology The Blessed Virgin Mary is stripped of all her titles and privileges, reducing her to a ‘type of Church’ as in keeping with chapter 8 of Lumen Gentium. Her Divine Maternity is belittled and it is subordinated to the incarnation thus reducing it to human Motherhood. The Dogmas are taken to be time-conditioned, hence in need of hermeneutics according to time. Dogmas are reduced to verbal formulas, which the modernists say are ‘icons of God’s word and can harm our faith if we turn to idols.’ The perpetual Virginity is interpreted spiritually, hence implicitly denied. They dispute her vow of virginity reducing it to a “commitment to God’s service”. — Again the denial is couched and concealed with ambiguity. Here is a statement explicitly made: “Jesus would not be less divine if he was to be born of Joseph”! Disputing tradition from St. Augustine and all the Fathers of the Church!. The perpetual Virginity of Our Lady is reduced to “single-minded openness to God” – that she retained this ‘attitude’ all through her life. And hence it should not be taken literally. This is downplaying Divine Revelation and is indeed a blasphemy! The ‘Magnificat’, the hymn of Our Lady, is turned into ‘song of social liberation’. ‘Mary sings a hymn of God’s revolution’ [by J. Mollmann]. Mary is once again reduced here to be a “liberated woman” – It is indeed outrageous! Our Lady is depicted as a herald of the “diabolically inspired feminist movements” of modern days, which are revolting against God’s established natural order in creation. III. Sin, Salvation, Grace, Sacraments According to modernists, there is no concept of sin possible except in the social context – “structures of sin” [Soli Rei Socialis 36-37], as spoken by Pope John Paul II, “social sin”. Reconciliation does not take place in the confessional but in the world, in the arena of plurality of cultures and religious…. According to this naturalistic thinking of the modernists, ‘salvation is not spiritual, individual and other-worldly, but “holistic” and “social” in the dialectical relationship with society. Thus, the mission of Christ ,and redemption wrought by him, are from the oppressive social structures. Therefore Salvation = Liberation = Social Justice [classless society of Marx]. Hence, as a logical consequence of the naturalistic absurdities, ‘Grace’ is something social. By this they naturalise ‘Grace’ which is a supernatural gift of God to horizontalizing it into a “a joint effort of person and communities that entails ‘Universal Solidarity’. ‘Sacraments’ too are reduced to community dimension with no definite number of sacrament as defined by the Council of Trent to be i.e., 7 sacraments. They say that the number of sacraments has changed in the past due to social change. Therefore another change could lead to new sacraments – heresy!!! Sacraments are stripped off from their supernatural level – as being a supernatural life of Grace to having an anthropological dimension reaching out to human needs within the community and orienting us to do the same with people of all other religions. And so, the modernists “heretically” hold that in response to Protestant reformation, Trent decided the sacraments to be seven in number. In some other context of space and time, the Holy Spirit could inspire the Church to define new sacraments. The modernists also downplay the official term used by Trent ‘ex opere operato’ with the disguise of “re-interpreting” it to mean in the words of Karl Rahner and Juan Segundo (periti of Vatican II) that “sacraments signify and celebrate God’s presence and power everywhere.” Therefore the term ‘ex opere operato’ implies no privilege of grace; rather it is a “responsibility to be at the service of humanity”. This certainly makes one who is serious about his own salvation to doubt the validity of the ‘New Mass’ which is intrinsically evil, as well as the Novus Ordo sacraments. The professor, a priest, at the Bombay seminary said that “the Council of Trent encouraged a ‘magical’ approach to sacraments while today we re-interpret all the sacraments in terms of ‘human response’ ”. IV. The Priesthood The Priesthood is portrayed within the Common Priesthood of the people (LG 10) where each one is participating in the Priesthood of Christ. By this the Priest is not a Maxi-Christian bigger than the lay people. The Priesthood is meant to serve the common priesthood. The Council of Trent is ridiculed and downplayed for its starting point for the priesthood being a “power to consecrate, absolve…”. Hence, the starting point for the modernist is not a power to consecrate etc., but the mission of Jesus as Priest, prophet and king – announcing the Gospel and leading to Eucharistic assembly which is no longer the holy sacrifice to be present by the priest alone, but it is an ecclesial action of the whole Church – the “Ecclesiastical Eucharist”, by which the priest is only the presider of the assembly in the Eucharist. To be a priest is to enter the Presbyterian, not as an individual, but as a ‘community’. Therefore, sharing the views of another heretical Indian, so-called theologian, Fr. Amalodoss S. J., the professors of the seminary held that “even though traditionally (even until Vatican II) the priesthood was considered with “Christ” as the starting point, today it is seen with the “priestly people” as the starting point – in terms of the new Apostolic – It shows their implicit denial of these marks. V. Evangelisation And so, the whole purpose of “Evangelisation or New Evangelisation” as called by the modernists – is firstly, to contextualise the mission-command of Jesus. The modernist twist the Mission-Command of Our Lord “Go make disciples of all nations….” by saying that the apostles presented Christ according to their context, i.e., the ‘text’ was kept in the creative tension with the ‘context’ namely, the people, their culture, way of thinking etc., and accordingly they re-interpreted the mission-command. Therefore we too interpret the Mission-Command accordingly to our Indian or Asian context – And the FABC (Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conference) based on Gaudium et Spes 1, interprets the Mission-Command erroneously thus -“Share the good news in continuous, loving and humble ‘dialogue’ with India’s/Asia’s poor, with its local cultures and religious traditions, live in harmony with all religions thus achieving mutual enrichment and recognizing the “signs of Christ’s presence and of the working of the spirit in other religions” (Redemptoris Missio, John Paul II No, 56). The Modernist Mission-Command (not that of Our Lord) speaks of witnessing of life (this-worldly) valued more immensely than doctrines and dogmas. This is linked with their false conviction that concerning the ultimate reality we cannot grasp what it is, but only what it is not. “Whatever be the doctrines held, one looks for witness of life which is “personal experience” and to make Christ present in “some manner” – [Mission in the Present Decade by Fr. Julian Saldanha S. J. in Ishvani Documentation and Mission Digest, 1999 No. 2]. Conclusion When I look back on those years in the Bombay Seminary, the only picture that comes to my mind is that of “Israel caught in the slavery of Egypt” – the years of physical but much more a spiritual oppression that I saw, heard and felt with all my senses. It was as though once again as in the time of Moses, that Aaron the Priest made the Golden Calf. This time there was not just one but many golden calves! Such were ‘Social Justice’, ‘Inculturation’, ‘Inter-religion dialogue’, ‘Community building’ etc., all these calves were supported and based on one foundation namely the ‘Novus Ordo Missae’ – the Ecumenical Mass. In the words of Our Lord to those who came to arrest Him: “It is your hour and the power of darkness”. These ideologies which are directly contrary to the Catholic faith have taken its place by sneaking into the Church through the crack of Vatican II. The Progenitors as well as the teachers of these iniquities were prophesied about by St. Paul in 2 Thess. 2:10 saying that “God shall send them the operation of error, to believe lying”. What chastisement more terrible can there be than a hierarchy that has lost its direction and of which our great founder, Archbishop Lefebvre quoting the 3rd secret of Our Lady of Fatima, says – “the hierarchy that has undergone a “diabolical disorientation” [They have uncrowned Him, p. 251]. In the years that I was studying theology, my only guide and inspirer was the Blessed Virgin Mother, with all the pain and anguish of my heart over all these blasphemies that were taught to us, also the mocking and the ridicule against the Catholic faith that was manifested in every lecture of theology, in words as well as in the behaviour of my fellow seminarians. Such blasphemous formation created manifold types of seminarians namely:
As for me, in the midst of all this confusion, Our Blessed Mother through her holy Rosary, guided my steps to Tradition. I was once told by the Rector himself that “Praying the Rosary is to be engaged in superstition, we must do what Our Lady has done, i.e. ‘reach-out’. Once again they were reducing Our Lady to naturalism. The first step of Our Lady’s guidance was to lead some of us, in September 2001 to the “Tridentine Mass” which was said in the diocese by the Indult granted by the Cardinal himself. This became the immediate cause of halting my ordination to the diaconate by the Cardinal himself, accusing me of being a “Lefebvrist” along with my companions and friends who were attending the Indult Mass granted by him. It was thus, that the Cardinal through his “accusation” introduced for the first time for us the name of our holy founder and father in the faith, Archbishop Lefebvre. This was Our Blessed Mother’s second step, through the mouth of the Cardinal himself leading us to the only successor of the apostles, who preserved the Catholic faith and introduced the Lord’s most Holy Sacrifice. The Cardinal next called me on December 7th for another meeting with him. The three months before this meeting were indeed a period of great anguish for me and my only consolation and consoler was Our Lady of Sorrow. My family was very supportive in every way, especially in prayer and penance. My mother, in whom ever since childhood I saw the shadow of Our Blessed Mother, was the one who strengthened me to remain firm in the Catholic faith, to have recourse to the Blessed Virgin Mother and not to fear or give in to the pressure of the devil coming through the hierarchy. This was indeed the truth: it was the devil himself that was trying to break all my defence through the authorities. On December 3rd, feast of St. Francis Xavier, Our Lord through the intercession of the Mother of God answered my prayer. A friend of mine gave me the “Open Letter to Confused Catholics” by Archbishop Lefebvre, which I read twice before December 7th, the day of meeting the Cardinal. His Eminence, the Cardinal welcomed me warmly and then disclosed to me his plan. He intended to give me a Jesuit Priest as a counsellor to clash down all my funny ideas (of faith) and during this period of one or two years, I would have to work and “rub my shoulder with Hindus, Moslem and all types of people of various religions and then realize that they too possess the truth.” In this way I would be purified of all old and outdated ideas of faith, and accept Vatican II with all its Ecumenical orientations. He demanded complete obedience to his authority. He himself would then come to my parish and lay his hands on me and so that “I would climb up the ladder” – This phrase demonstrates the Masonic technique of luring souls to the vanity of this world. Here, it was as though I came face to face with the devil who was saying to me “I will give you all this, if you bow down and worship me.” I went back home with a heavy heart, only trusting in God’s providence. That same evening, on the eve of the feast of Immaculate Conception, a friend of mine called me up and told me he had to tell me something important. I met him the next day after the Tridentine Mass held in the crypt of Don Bosco’s shrine and he introduced me to the Society of St. Pius X. Thanks be to God, for at last after a long journey through heresy and so many traps of the devil, He led me to the Truth. And as Our Lord says “And the Truth will set thee free.” Indeed! Our Blessed Mother did everthing for me and then I was invited by Fr. Thomas Blute, superior of India, to attend the retreat at Palayamkottai with Fr. Couture and six other priests. For the first time, after a life-long company with so many priests, that retreat gave me a company of true priests. I felt myself truly in priestly company. The retreat blessed me with necessary grace to renounce evil and turn to the Truth. Thanks be to God, I say, for preserving the Catholic faith through our great father and founder Archbishop Lefebvre, and I pray to the Blessed Virgin Mother who has crushed all heresies under her feet to enlighten and deliver all her sons, beginning with Our Holy Father, and all Cardinals, Bishops, priests and religious, so that Her own promise may come to be fulfilled. “In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!” Lawrence D’Souza Third Testimony Besides what my fellow seminarians have written, I would simply like to add the following on Moderators’ Groups which played a important role in the seminary. Moderator Groups This was a system by which the seminarians, under the guidance of a priest met every week to have discussions on various topics, followed by a mass on the following day. Each moderator group comprised 10 to 15 members. The seminary had about 7 to 8 moderator groups. One of the purposes of these groups was to facilitate a greater interaction among its members. But unfortunately, they were a good means of innovation and adaptation to the excess of modernism. Each week the mass was said by the priest in his room .As a priest of inculturation, he said it by squatting on the floor. A lot of novelties were introduced at this mass, which included substituting the prayers from the missal by spontaneous prayers, a group sharing on a topic after the gospel, passing of the paten and the chalice for the receiving of communion under both species individually by each member and a replacement at the proper mass vestments by a shawl. Sometimes for these moderator meetings, guest speakers were invited to speak to the group. These included Protestant pastors, Jewish rabbis, members of the non governmental organizations involved in humanitarian works irrespective of religion, doctors, Catholic youth, married couples, etc. As part of the meetings, we also visited the home for the aged, clergy home (for retired priests), home for the terminally ill, parishes that implemented the principles of liberation theology, etc. Sadly, not on a few occasions, these meetings fostered an ecumenical approach, downplaying the necessity of conversion to the one true Catholic Faith, promoting justice irrespectively of religion, substituting tradition with the principles of liberalism, etc. One of the moderator meeting was focused on the great injustice done by the authorities of the Church in excommunicating a Sri Lankan theologian (Fr. Balasuryia, O.M.I.) whose writings on our Lady were heretical. Hence, regrettably, the system of moderator groups was a vehicle for modernism. Anthony Rodrigues |