NOVEMBER 10/12/13, 2014
The distorted crucifix and liturgical abuses at St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Dubai,
and the false claims of Prakash Lasrado exposed
DISTORTED CRUCIFIX TO BE INSTALLED AT ST MARYS CHURCH DUBAI-01
25 NOVEMBER/5 DECEMBER 2013
DISTORTED CRUCIFIX INSTALLED AT ST MARYS CHURCH DUBAI-02
28 OCTOBER/10 NOVEMBER 2014
Against the second report listed above, released on October 28, 2010 and updated earlier today, one Prakash Lasrado wrote me four email letters between November 7 and November 9, all four of which are reproduced below in their entirety, all emphases his.
Each of Lasrado’s letters was copied to the Vatican, to the parish priest of St. Mary’s Church in Dubai, to my Archbishop, and to around 65 various cardinals, bishops, priests and laity.
Lasrado charges that my reports are false, that I am “spreading rumours about St. Mary’s church Dubai and raising false alarms“. He even attached photographs (you may view them further down) to two of the email letters to prove that “The crucifix is a normal crucifix and not a distorted one“. He probably did not realize that the two photographs are of two different crucifixes and altars.
Lasrado claims that he “had been to St. Mary’s Dubai recently and did not see a distorted crucifix“.
Parishioners of St. Mary’s confirmed to me that “The picture of the crucifix circulated by Prakash Lasrado is of the old altar, which is currently installed at the altar in the chapel. This picture of the old crucifix in the chapel altar also appears in the church Facebook page“.
The images of the distorted crucifix provided by me in the 02 report are those that have been available since some time now and one may view them by clicking on the following YouTube video link “streamed live on October 24, 2014“, of the installation ceremony of the new parish priest, Fr. Lennie J. A. Connully, OFM Cap.
The four letters with false claims circulated by Prakash Lasrado:
Edward M Delhi ; Ronnie Prabhu ; Ronnieprabhu ; Robert Monteiro ; Archbishop Madras ; Cedric Prakash ; Percival Fernandez ; Aloysius Paul D’ Souza ; Oswald Gracias ; Cardinal Oswald Gracious ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Eugene Lobo S.J. ; Francis Serrao ; email@example.com ; Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Catholic Bishops conference of India ; Catholic Bishops conference of India ; Catholic Bishops conference of India Catholic Bishops conference of India ; Pronuncio ; email@example.com ; Archbishop Filip Neri ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Bishop Ferdie Fonseca ; email@example.com ; Fr Clement de Lima ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Ryan Anthony Fernandes ;
firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Adrian ; Fr Tony Mendonca ; Fr Rui Comelo ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Ralph Fernandes ; email@example.com ; Bishop of Vasai ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Prashanth D’Souza ; John Baptist Saldanha ; Fr Salu Rodrigues ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; John Rumao ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; John Sequeira ; Fr Michael Goveas ; FR Vernon ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; walter monteiro ; Terence Monteiro ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Trevor D’Souza ; Agnelo Gracias
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 6:40 PM
Subject: Rebuttal to Michael Prabhu on distorted crucifix planned in Dubai, message for Cardinal Mueller and St. Mary’s parish priest.
According to you, distorted crucifix is planned at St. Mary’s Dubai.
I have been to St. Mary’s church Dubai between April 2014 – June 2014 approximately.
There was no distorted crucifix at the altar.
Rev. Cardinal Gerhard Mueller,
If distorted crucifix is planned at St. Mary’s church, Dubai kindly stall the plan to install the distorted crucifix.
Fr. Tom Veneracion has left Dubai as of now.
Sent: Friday, November 07, 2014 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Michael Prabhu on distorted crucifix planned in Dubai, message for Cardinal Mueller and St. Mary’s parish priest.
Rev. Bishop Paul Hinder,
I do not know if a distorted crucifix is planned at St. Mary’s church Dubai.
I had been to St. Mary’s Dubai recently and did not see a distorted crucifix.
I have asked Cardinal Gerhard Mueller to stall the plan to install the distorted crucifix if any.
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:11 AM
Subject: Is Michael Prabhu spreading false rumours about St. Mary’s church Dubai?
Michael Prabhu (email@example.com),
Have a look at the altar photo of St. Mary’s church Dubai at the official website below
https://www.flickr.com/photos/saintmarysdubai/14745764458/in/set-72157645122796408 and attached by me below if you are unable to locate the photo above.
The crucifix is a normal crucifix and not a distorted one.
I have been to that church myself and saw a normal crucifix like the one in the photos
Is Michael Prabhu spreading rumours about St. Mary’s church Dubai and raising false alarms?
Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 8:23 AM
Subject: Re: Is Michael Prabhu spreading false rumours about St. Mary’s church Dubai?
Here is another view of the altar. The crucifix is a normal one, not a distorted one.
I have attached it below also
The Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/stmarysdubai/posts/10152762642968618 of St. Mary’s Church, Dubai shows some comments from parishioners on what they think about the new altar, the crucifix, the tabernacle, etc.
Joseph Pulikkottil Our New Alter work is very bad where is blessed sacrament? where is INRI on the Cross? where is crown of thorns? ….”Old Alter was better than this”
Nour Sarhan I’m actually very dissappointed. Where is the Tabernacle and Blessed Sacrament? Where is Jesus in the Center of the church? This is too sad… it’s not right…
Joseph Pulikkottil Am also….this is too sad and bad also mad work….
Virginia Moog Actually youre right… hanging cross? I dont like the thing where they put the chair… just dont like it… its not pleasing at all….. the old altar is peaceful and joyful very pleasing to the eyes.
Liturgical abuses at the installation Holy Mass of Fr. Lennie Connully OFM Cap., the new parish priest of St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Dubai, on October 24, 2014
And I thought that these abuses were commonplace only in my archdiocese of Madras-Mylapore!
For a full 27 minutes of the one hour and 33 minutes long video I watched with disbelief and great pain as, immediately after the conclusion of the Holy Communion service and until before the Final Blessing delivered by Bishop Paul Hinder (I presume it was him) at the concelebrated Mass at which he was the main presider, the clergy (including what I believe were the outgoing parish priest and his replacement) and a number of lay persons were embraced and hugged, felicitated, profusely applauded and presented with mementos within the sanctuary area. The bishop was actively involved. The presenters and recipients of awards wore large grins on their faces and I don’t believe that anyone in the church that day was conscious anymore that they were still at Holy Mass, commemorating the bloodless renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary, what with all the celebration of the priests’ and laity’s contributions to the parish.
From minutes 1:21:03 to 1:21:17 of the video, one can witness and hear the congregation hollering as if they were greeting a celebrity at a rock concert; it was just the former parish priest saying goodbye to them.
Earlier on when the incumbent parish priest was invested with the charge of the parish, there were two rounds of applause from the congregation as well as the concelebrants, first when the appointment order was read out by the bishop, and then again after the priest gave his acceptance of the appointment.
Aren’t the bishop and priests and lay members of the pious associations and councils of that parish aware that Holy Mass is not entertainment and that applause during Holy Mass is strictly a no-no?
APPLAUSE, JOKES, AND SAYING GOOD MORNING AT MASS
During his post Holy Communion speech — which could have been deferred to after the Final Blessing or even after the “Ite Missa Est” (dismissal) — the former parish priest Fr. Tomasito Veneracion actually referred to and defended the “theology” of the distorted crucifix (see report 01) that he had bequeathed to the parishioners, “He is not nailed, yet he appears crucified … the upward movement from the empty tomb Jesus rises … the crucifix which reflects the triumph of Jesus over the cross”.
That’s not what the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) stipulates; see GIRM 308 and 117 (you may refer to page 4 of the report 02).
The Church calls for a crucified corpus on or near the altar.
Not only was Jesus not crucified on the large cross above and behind the altar, but there was no crucifix on the altar either for the entire duration of the Holy Mass.
St. Mary’s is the largest Catholic parish in the whole world with a reported congregation of 400,000 faithful hailing from all over the world. If error is seeded in such a parish, it goes viral with astonishing speed.
Thankfully, the other usual Madras-Mylapore archdiocese atrocities from the lectors and the choir were not perpetrated (the lectors did not announce “the First Reading” and “the Second Reading” before proclaiming the readings, as if one did not know which they were! The Responsorial Psalm was a responsorial psalm with the reader taking the verses and the congregation responding to them instead of the choir substituting it with a jolly hymn which they fancied even though it had no connect with either the Responsorial Psalm of the particular Mass or with the two readings and the Gospel, while the now disconnected faithful patiently waited for the interlude to end; the lectors did not incorrectly announce “THIS is the Word of the Lord” but “The Word of the Lord” after the readings, and the congregation was correctly requested to “Kindly rise for the Gospel” instead of the “Please stand for the Gospel Acclamation” that we are subjected to at every Mass in my archdiocese; when the bishop proclaimed “The Mystery of Faith”, the choir led the congregation in singing one of the three approved responses, whereas here it is usually any old hymn, the most popular of which is “He is Lord”). The only abuse that I could find in respect of the faithful is that some of them had their hands extended and lifted in the Orans position, a gesture that is reserved for celebrants and deacons.
HOLDING HANDS AND ORANS POSITION DURING THE OUR FATHER
Oh, there’s one more thing. The choir couldn’t resist singing a second hymn during the distribution of Holy Communion. They, like the choirs in my archdiocese, simply do not know how to pray and reflect and to permit the people in the pews some silent time in communication with the Lord whom they have received.
The Tabernacle issue
We have seen that the parishioners of St. Mary’s Church, Dubai, themselves, on Facebook as well as in their communications to me in respect of my reports 01 and 02 (they are different people in all the cases), are confused about the existence and whereabouts of the Tabernacle.
The Tabernacle, the altar and the customary large crucifix behind and above it are three things that a Catholic looks for and recognizes instantly on entering a church. Catholics want to know where the Tabernacle is so that they can worship the living God reserved there in the Sacrament through some pious posture or gesture. If Catholics have difficulty in recognizing the Tabernacle, something is seriously wrong.
During the entire one and a half hour video recording of the installation Mass of Fr. Lenny Connully, I tried my best to locate the Tabernacle.
I recall a parishioner writing to me about a “cave” and I quote here from his letter to Rome:
“…Jesus breaking away from the nails and stretching towards a cave like structure which has replaced the Tabernacle. The cave is complete with two or three steps and has a high chair which is supposed to seat the main celebrant. The priest is projected as high above the altar… Shouldn’t the Tabernacle/Crucifix be the centre of attention in an altar when there is no mass celebrated? Even when the mass is celebrated, during reading, should our attention be to the priest who is seated like, i don’t want to say. He is ordained and represents the apostles, I should not comment.”
In the report 02, I later added that someone wrote to me “a tabernacle has been opened this week, concealed in the cave.”
Behind the altar, below the distorted crucifix, there is a rocky cave-like structure that resembles a tiled-roof house with the roof sloping off to the sides. In the centre of it there is a rectangular opening.
Immediately in front of the cave-like structure, there appears to be a broad seating arrangement that looks to me like a sofa or cushioned seat for the celebrant/presider. When Bishop Paul Hinder sat on it, as I observed from the video, the rectangular opening was not visible. If that rectangular opening is or contains the Tabernacle, the celebrant at all Masses would definitely block a view of the opening as the bishop on that day did. The height at which the seating is provided makes certain that the person seated on it obscures whatever it is that’s behind him. I sincerely hope that the rectangular opening is not the Tabernacle or that it does not house the Tabernacle.
The rectangular opening, if it has anything to do the Tabernacle, could have been placed at a higher level to remain visible at all times. I ardently hope that it is not the location of the Tabernacle.
Maybe that’s what the writer who I quoted above was trying to convey to us and to Rome, that the present arrangement serves to divert us from the awareness of Jesus and focus our attention on the celebrant.
Isn’t that what most of the liturgical aberrations are about? Glorifying the celebrant?
In my archdiocese, visiting priests are profusely thanked for coming over to say Mass, draped with shawls (ponnadais) and applauded, always at the instance of the parish priest. During Mass, these priests who are the servants and guardians of the liturgy, hijack it, innovate, dialogue with the faithful during the homily, leave the sanctuary and roam around the nave and aisles, use inclusive language (“God Our … Mother!”), have “Happy Birthday” sung for them by the choir and cut their birthday cake while it is shared with selected people and consumed at and around the altar. Applause? Of course, all the time. The celebrants are to be celebrated, aren’t they?
The rocky cave-like structure that resembles a tiled-roof house with the roof sloping off to the sides can be seen more clearly in the 1:06:14 video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe8KMWp-qLI of Fr. Lennie’s first Mass as parish priest of St. Mary’s, October 26, 2014 than in the installation Mass video.
In the second video, the priest and altar servers genuflect (not bow) towards it so my initial guess was that it must be the Tabernacle but then I thought that maybe they’re genuflecting towards the (distorted) crucifix. Then, the priest turns around, faces the congregation and the crucifix-less altar, and bows his head toward the altar cloth just where the Missal is placed (at that moment, the complete action of the priest is partly obscured by the Missal).
Despite investing considerable time in studying the two videos, I could not make up my mind if the rectangular opening is a canopy for the celebrant’s seat or if it has anything to do with the Tabernacle. If not, where then is the Tabernacle? Though Bishop Paul Hinder had used it to seat himself (the first video), Fr. Lennie Connully sat elsewhere, on the side (the second video*). If I receive feedback with clarifications from parishioners of St. Mary’s, I will include them in this report, revising and modifying it where necessary.
*Incidentally, the close-up of the distorted crucifix is visibly clearer here than in the earlier analysed video.
After I released a draft of this report, I received a letter clarifying “The Tabernacle as I’ve seen being opened during masses is in the left hand side of the cave. It’s not visible in the videos as it was only quite recently opened.”
So was the Tabernacle an after-thought? Was it not there when the renovated church building was commissioned/inaugurated? Was it not there during the installation of Fr. Lennie Connully? Maybe it was.
But earlier communications to this ministry from the parishioners of St. Mary’s lamented that there was no Tabernacle!!! So did the Facebook comments of October 25!!! What is the reality?
This report will be further modified on receipt of clarifications from the priests or parishioners of St. Mary’s.
FOR THE NEXT UPDATE, GO TO PAGES 12/13
One Prakash Lasrado (pages 1 through 3) has been stalking this ministry since May 6, 2013.
Below is his very first (unsolicited) letter to me; in just two days, I received a veritable flood of emails from him (from the second letter onwards, he dropped the “Dear” and immediately thereafter the “Regards”).
Subject: Re: IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN INDIA IN A CONFUSED STATE
I have certain differences of opinion with you.
I feel that
1. Yoga -minus Hindu philosophy/theology is a good body exercise
2. Laypeople must not be allowed to preach. However they can give testimonies of healing, conversion etc. I have seen certain erroneous articles in Examiner written by laypeople.
I wrote just one letter to him, and it was in response to the above. I reproduce the first and last paragraphs:
Sent: Tuesday, May 07, 2013 7:34 PM
My dear brother Prakash,
I write this to you with absolutely no offense, so please don’t take it amiss and be offended.
I take every email that I receive very seriously, and as you can see below, I have given the exact same consideration to all of yours, and taken out the relevant information copied below after spending nearly three precious hours of my ministry time on them hoping to gain something, which I really didn’t in the end.
So may I please request you to remove my name from your mailing list after reading this response from me.
In return, I can assure you that you will not hear from me again [even if you do respond, which I request you to not do].
[…] you started to send me general Catholic information. I am subscribed to all Catholic news agencies and so I already have all the information that you sent. We are both wasting our time.
Kindly honour my request to have my name removed, brother.
Thank you and God bless you. Michael
Prakash Lasrado did not honour my respectful letter requesting him to stop emailing me (up to a dozen times a day). I have received thousands of emails from him over the last 18 months. On my part, I have kept my word that he would not hear from me again. In his letters to me, copied to his extensive mailing list, he cites a blog that is named ephesians511 under the impression that it is owned and operated by me. It isn’t. I don’t believe that I have even visited that blog more than once. If I do have any information from or about that blog, it is only from Lasrado or from other readers of my web site which is www.ephesians-511.net.
As I am doing now, I was constrained to write about/cite Prakash Lasrado in the following documents:
NEW COMMUNITY BIBLE 21-HALF-TRUTHS FROM CARDINAL OSWALD GRACIAS
THE RISEN CHRIST ON A CROSS
YOGA AND THE BRAHMA KUMARIS AT A CATHOLIC COLLEGE IN THE ARCHDIOCESE OF BOMBAY
NEW AGE-BISHOP JULIAN PORTEOUS
THE PRAKASH LASRADOS, THE JOHNSON SEQUEIRAS AND THE DOMINIC DIXONS
A few months ago, Prakash Lasrado launched his own blog, again accusing me of deleting his comments on the ephesians511 blog which is anyway not mine at all.
Subject: EXPOSING MICHAEL PRABHU’S DEFAMATORY TRICKS AGAINST PRAKASH LASRADO BLOG
Since you delete my comments on your ephesians blog, I have put a new blog to counter you.
Did Prakash Lasrado start his blog only to spite me? Here is another letter he wrote two days later:
EXPOSING MICHAEL PRABHU’S DEFAMATORY TRICKS AGAINST PRAKASH LASRADO BLOG
I made some changes so that it appears on Google search engine
EXPOSING MICHAEL PRABHU’S DEFAMATORY TRICKS AGAINST PRAKASH LASRADO
Michael Prabhu, Your article on
whose link is pasted below is defamatory since I do not use false identities while communicating. You have falsely accused me of deception by posing as someone else on below blog.
I tried to defend myself by rebutting you in above blog in the comments section but you kept on deleting my comments and even prevented me from rebutting you by blocking my future comments. This proves your guilt.
Hence I have posted a new blog in my defence.
Why are you silent after your dirty defamatory tricks against opponents like me are exposed?
You used to accuse clergy of being silent when you asked them theological questions based on your faulty knowledge and gloat over their silence. Now you are being paid back in the same coin by me and you are now silent after your dirty tricks are exposed by me. God has used me to silence you.
I have lost all respect for you. You could not even give me one good intelligent rebuttal to my theological attack on your website and stooped so low that you started defaming me.
In fact you were afraid of my challenge via email to you with cc to all.
I was not afraid of humiliation, but you were afraid of humiliation and tried your best to discourage me from sending emails with cc to all by asking your followers to write to me and discourage me.
You were more interested in pampering your ego than learning the truth. This caused your downfall.
Anyway I am not bothered about my reputation since I lost it long ago, so it does not bother me if you defame me publicly. I was more interested in exposing your dirty tricks against opponents.
You defame people when you are defeated in a theological battle. Hence the articles on your blog cannot be trusted at all.
I hope you turn into a new leaf in future.
Just about a month earlier to that letter, I had written to my Archbishop since he too is on Prakash Lasrado‘s mailing list. I am herewith making that letter public so that it clarifies some of the issues that he raises:
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: Please beware of Michael Prabhu an incompetent theologian who defames people when defeated.
Dear Archbishop George Antonysamy,
I am not in the habit of refuting letters like this one from Prakash Lasrado to you and which is copied to many others mainly because I do not ever receive any such mail from anyone else.
I have received tens of thousands of emails since I started my e-ministry in 2003, and if I begin to reproduce the supportive ones, they will be in the thousands — from laity, seminarians, priests, Catholic ministries worldwide, bishops and Cardinals.
That is the reason that if you click on the TESTIMONIALS bar at the top of my home page www.ephesians-511.net, you will find the folder EMPTY! I would not know where to begin!
I am a conservative Catholic, trained in Catholic Bible schools and schools of Evangelisation. I am neither a Traditionalist, nor am I a liberal. My Catholicism is orthodox, ever and absolutely faithful to the 2000-year old teachings of Rome.
Prakash Lasrado has deluged me with maybe 2000 letters over the past 13 months or so. Every letter of his is copied to at least 50 to 60 people; earlier it used to be 100 individuals but many of them asked him to remove their names from his mailing list.
I wrote to Lasrado only once, in response to his first letter and I immediately asked to be de-listed. He did not oblige. Several people wrote to him insisting that I am doing a good ministry and asking him to leave me alone. He ignored them.
Two overseas bishops wrote to Lasrado copy to me asking him to remove their names from his list; they did not ask me to stop writing to them.
I have also never, ever written to a single individual on Lasrado’s list refuting his absurd/false claims about me and my ministry, and defending myself.
He is subscribed to a blog (not owned or operated by me) which posts many of the files that are hosted by me on my site, and he scours them for points with which he could write and harass me.
He complains that his comments are not posted on the blog that posts my files. That may be so. That is between him and the blog owner. I myself have not visited the said blog more than once.
After saving the first around 1000 of his emails to me, I now simply delete them after a glance to see if there’s anything new.
You will note that I am not marking a copy of this letter to Lasrado. But, you are free to share it with him if you so desire.
Because of certain statements made by Lasrado in his letter, I have to write to you to clarify certain things.
I have never had to defend my positions with other Bishops or Cardinals because a large number of them have been in correspondence with me for many years now — I can truthfully say that I have over a thousand communications from the Bishops, Cardinals and CBCI Executive Commissions in my files — and I have never received a condemnatory letter from any one of them.
Lasrado from the beginning repeatedly calls me a “theologian” and says that I consider myself one.
I have at no time, ever, claimed to be a “theologian”.
You may please ask him to furnish you proof that I claim/ed to be a “theologian”.
Lasrado from the outset repeatedly also claims that I desired to but could not succeed in teaching theology in a seminary.
I have at no time, ever, stated that, orally or in writing.
There are tens of thousands of pages on my web site and tens of thousands of my emails out there in cyber space.
You may ask him to furnish you evidence that I expressed such a desire.
It is true that he was operating under different aliases. The Catholics who operate the blog Mumbai Laity, the AOCC or Association of Concerned Catholics, had exposed him on that, and after almost a year of arguments got Lasrado to quit their email list where he was attacking them and everyone else on any issued that caught his fancy. The lawyers who run that blog asked him several times to reveal his location and telephone number but he steadfastly refused. I have all their correspondence with him. Whereas I operate my ministry openly, he hides under anonymity.
He complains that truncated emails of his are cited/posted by me in files/reports concerning him on my site.
His complaint is genuine.
His emails are complicated and have no syntax or discipline. He switches to multiple topics in the course of a single letter; he sends off an email and dispatches a further one or two within a space of a few minutes of each other, including something that he forgot to say at the start. To achieve some sanity when citing Lasrado, I have to take out and copy only that portion which is relevant to the issue that I am addressing. My reports are already complicated. Copy-pasting Lasrado’s directionless rambling letters would not help any.
I have been serving as a “watchman” to the Church for a couple of decades. I also improve my knowledge by consulting other Catholics — laity and priests more knowledgeable than I — and by intensive studying/researching.
For the past two months now, I have been sharpening my knowledge of liturgy. When I write, I collate information from various sources, mostly Catholic, and present it to Catholics worldwide who are readers of my site.
A very minor proportion of what I write may be of my personal opinion but even then I make an appeal to Catholic teaching.
I do not hide behind my work; it is published under my name for all to see. Even though some clergy may not agree with me, they respect me for my integrity. I abhor lies and deceit, and those who know me, are close to me, can vouch for that.
Yes, I oppose Catholics doing yoga, bharatanatyam dancing, the chanting of “OM”, and the like that I perceive as the Hinduisation of the Indian church. I believe that homoeopathy and acupuncture are New Age… And those are the reasons as to why Lasrado has trained his guns on me: he and his family do yoga, bharatanatyam, homoeopathy…
If a Catholic disagrees with me on my position on yoga, homoeopathy, bharatanatyam and so on, he or she is free to do so.
Many people do, and we discuss our different worldviews by telephone or email.
But if someone wants to seriously challenge me on those or other issues that I write about, a situation that I would welcome, they may begin by refuting the Catholic evidence that I have presented in my files.
This again is an absolutely false statement of Lasrado’s: “Many members of the laity initially rallied behind Michael Prabhu saying that he should be allowed to teach in the seminary without knowing the full facts and quarreled with bishops who refused him the opportunity to teach. When I corrected them with proofs, they turned their guns on me saying that I must follow Michael Prabhu blindly without questioning.” I haven’t the least clue as to when I wanted to teach in a seminary –or anywhere else for that matter. His accusation is pure fantasy.
To answer Lasrado, yes, if our priests were not venerating Ganesha as recorded by me in my
TAMIL NADU CLERGY VENERATE THE HINDU DEITY GANESHA
22 FEBRUARY 2014
report, what were they doing participating in the pujas?
And yes, as Lasrado informed you, I did write about Pope Francis. In fact there are five reports on our present Pope at my web site. (Isn’t it odd that I did not have to write anything critical about Pope Benedict XVI during his entire Pontificate?)
The most recent of them is:
QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 05-BAPTISM OF ALIENS
21 MAY 2014
The Church does teach that the Pope can never err in matters of faith and morals. But he, like any priest or Bishop or Cardinal could make other human mistakes — as to have indulged in New Age, etc.
QUO VADIS PAPA FRANCISCO 04-COMPROMISED BY NEW AGE ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE?
If I am wrong in any of my reports — which has happened just once till now, and which was in the case of a single sentence — I am always prepared to make the necessary corrections if the error is brought to my notice.
Also, all correspondence between me and the Church authorities — answered by them or otherwise — is posted by me on my site. I don’t know if that is the “junk” that Lasrado referred to.
I am a Catholic apologist; if someone agrees with me and my findings and conclusions in my reports, they should not mind my reproducing their views. If someone in authority disagrees with me and my findings and conclusions in my reports, they should have no objection to their difference of opinion with me being made public. That is the simple logic that I follow.
I would like for any episcopal authority to provide me with written evidence that yoga and bharatanatyam (to name just two of a myriad of issues) may be practiced by my four grandchildren without their compromising the Faith of our Fathers and the salvation of their eternal souls (and yes, I know what Nostra Aetate and Ecclesia in Asia and other Roman Documents say about other religions).
These are just a few of my more recent reports:
INDIAN JESUIT THEOLOGIAN FR MICHAEL AMALADOSS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY ROME 14 MAY 2014
NEW AGE FAIR AT MOUNT ST MARY CONVENT MUMBAI 19 MAY 2014
USE OF THE GIFT OF TONGUES DURING HOLY MASS
24 MAY 2014
U.S. CATHOLIC MAGAZINE ENDORSES NEW AGE-REIKI, YOGA AND ZEN
25 MAY 2014
You are certain to receive more emails from Lasrado, under copy to the list that he has used today.
On my part, I will not respond to him as always, but neither will I write to you contradicting/rebutting his claims, however preposterous.
I was constrained to write the above letter to my Archbishop after I received the following barrage of letters from Prakash Lasrado, 6 successive emails in one evening. Please understand that this is an almost daily affair, it has been this way for over 18 months, and I have never written to him except once which was only to ask him to remove me from his mailing list. Here are his SIX emails of the evening of June 27, 2014:
firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com
Cedric Prakash ; Percival Fernandez ; Oswald Gracias ; Cardinal Oswald Gracious ; Agnelo Gracias ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Aloysius Paul D’ Souza ; Fr Eugene Lobo S.J. ; Francis Serrao ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr. Augustine Vallooran VC ; email@example.com ; Catholic Bishops conference of India ; Pronuncio ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Archbishop Filip Neri ; email@example.com ; Bishop Ferdie Fonseca ; Ronnie Prabhu ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Clement de Lima ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; Ryan Anthony Fernandes ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Adrian ; Fr Tony Mendonca ; Fr Rui Comelo ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Fr Ralph Fernandes ; email@example.com ; Bishop of Vasai ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Prashanth D’Souza ; John Baptist Saldanha ; Fr Warner Dsouza ; Fr Salu Rodrigues ; email@example.com ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; John Rumao ; Catholic Bishops conference of India ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; John Sequeira ; Fr Michael Goveas ; FR Vernon ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; email@example.com ; walter monteiro ; Terence Monteiro ; Robert Monteiro ; firstname.lastname@example.org ; Trevor D’Souza
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:43 PM
Subject: Questions and answers for Michael Prabhu
I have rebutted you on theological errors in the past with cc to all. I have put the Archbishop of Madras also in the list.
So far I have never received a direct counter rebuttal from you in the past with cc to all.
I have a few queries for you.
1. Can a non baptized person administer baptism?
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize58, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.59
2. Can a person be called a Christian if he has not received baptism?
1258 The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ.
This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament.
3. Can a member of the laity visit the sick and give Holy Communion?
Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (EMHCs) who take Communion to the sick and homebound have a role in sharing the Church’s total ministry to the sick after the manner of Jesus
Your dull student, Prakash
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to Michael Prabhu- Laying of hands is permitted in Catholic charismatic movements
Added the Archbishop of Madras to the list so that he is not harassed by the theological errors of Michael Prabhu.
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 4:37 PM
Subject: Please beware of Michael Prabhu an incompetent theologian who defames people when defeated.
Rev. George Antonysamy (Archbishop of Mylapore-Madras),
You were not on my email list earlier.
Please beware of Michael Prabhu (email@example.com) an incompetent theologian who was upset because he could not teach theology in a seminary. He does not even have a licentiate degree in theology, yet he poses as a great teacher of theology. I proved to him using Vatican documents from the Vatican website that one needs a minimum licentiate degree to teach theology in a seminary.
He likes to pontificate on theological matters when in reality he is a big zero on theology. Not only that. He has defamed me saying that I use false identities while communicating via email as seen below.
When I try to rebut him by defending myself in the comments section of above blog he deletes the comments.
Moreover my truncated, modified emails will appear on his blog because he wants to hide inconvenient truths. He will selectively publish emails in order to hide inconvenient truths. I always used to write to him with cc to all so that he is unable to modify my emails and at least a few people will know the truth.
Till date I have posed many challenges to Michael Prabhu supported by Vatican documentary proofs and he did not rebut me directly even once because he could not rebut me and felt defeated.
He will always beat about the bush without addressing the issue directly via reply email to me with cc to all but instead backstab me by posting verbose junk on his blog.
He throws a lot of mud on people but the mud never sticks.
If you look at his blog you will find lot of junk articles about yoga, bharatanatyam etc and he accuses the priests of Tamil Nadu of worshipping Ganesha.
After reading his defamatory comments about me, I have stopped believing his blog altogether. There is a lot of junk about the Archbishop of Mylapore-Madras on his website.
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Please beware of Michael Prabhu an incompetent theologian who defames people when defeated.
Michael Prabhu has not spared even Pope Francis. Read below
Can anyone believe his anti-Catholic blog?
I independently verify information from reputed sources unlike some other members of the laity who get easily deceived by his blog.
Many members of the laity initially rallied behind Michael Prabhu saying that he should be allowed to teach in the seminary without knowing the full facts and quarreled with bishops who refused him the opportunity to teach. When I corrected them with proofs, they turned their guns on me saying that I must follow Michael Prabhu blindly without questioning.
Michael Prabhu is an expert in sowing seeds of division and hatred between the clergy and laity with false inputs in order to gain prominence. He is a greedy opportunist who believes in serving himself rather than serving the church.
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 8:55 PM Subject: Rebut me with cc to all
If I have said anything wrong about you, rebut me with cc to all. Do not backstab me on your blog.
firstname.lastname@example.org ; Around 60 bishops, etc
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2014 9:58 PM
Subject: Another Catholic priest alleges defamation by Michael Prabhu
You have defamed me. As per your below blog, another priest has alleged defamation by you. Why do you backstab and defame people rather than seeking direct clarifications? https://ephesians511blog.com/2013/02/24/correspondence-with-rome/
Prakash Lasrado in the above email no. VI was referring to the file CORRESPONDENCE WITH ROME
in which I reproduced to Rome in one of my two letters to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger who was then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith “in connection with the alarming spread of syncretism and New Age in the Church in India” my concerns about the promotion and propagation of the occult, Theosophy and New Age by the Catholic Health Association of India (CHAI). For exposing the evil anti-Catholic activities of CHAI, I had received a letter from its priest-director Fr. Sebastian Ousepparampil threatening me with legal action.
This was in March 2002. I took up the matter with the CBCI using all the resources that I had.
I myself published CHAI’s threatening letter on my web site. I sent it to several dicasteries in Rome by post.
The intervention by the CBCI put an end to almost all of CHAI’s theosophical, occult and New Age activity.
But all that the anonymous without-an-address Prakash Lasrado could do was tell my archbishop and his mailing list that I was backstabbing and defaming people and that a priest has alleged defamation by me.
He did not let my Archbishop and his mailing list see my response and other sections of my report sent to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, such as:
“The fourth stall belonged to the CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION OF INDIA [CHAI]. Every single item [books and their “HEALTH ACTION” magazine] promoted the NEW AGE and PURE OCCULT. THERE WERE TITLES BY FREEMASONS, THEOSOPHISTS AND SATANISTS! THERE WAS NOTHING CATHOLIC ON DISPLAY OR SALE.
For distributing warning leaflets [copy enclosed] a copy of which was also sent to CHAI, about the true activities of CHAI, CHAI have sent me a letter threatening me with legal action.”
“NOTE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF CHAI DID NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES IN MY LEAFLET OR LETTER. HE ALSO DID NOT MARK COPIES OF HIS LETTER TO ANY OF THE BISHOPS OR THE CONCERNED COMMISSION OF THE CBCI. THIS MINISTRY DID NOT RESPOND TO THE LETTER. HOWEVER, COPIES OF IT WERE SENT BY ME TO THE CONCERNED BISHOPS.“
The subject of my letter to the future Pope Benedict XVI was “10th WORLD DAY OF THE SICK INTERNATIONAL CELEBRATIONS IN VAILANKANNI, INDIA, FROM 9-11 FEBRUARY 2002“.
I was present at the celebrations in Vailankanni for four full days, February 8-11, 2002, taking photographs and making notes of the pure evil (New Age and occult) that was being promoted in the sacred grounds of the Cathedral by CHAI and a few nuns of the Sister-Doctors Forum of India (SDFI).
I distributed thousands of leaflets condemning the evils to the nearly three thousand Catholic delegates assembled there, many of who were from overseas. I placed packages of papers prepared by me beforehand in the hands of cardinals and bishops. And when the stalls of CHAI continued to do their evil work even on the last day of the event, the 11th of February, I took the microphone in my hand and demanded to know how and why the cream of the Indian Church assembled there was turning a blind eye to what was going on.
I’d traveled to Vailankanni for one reason only; to confront evil and fight it. “Back” stabbing? Anything but.
I had well deserved the letter from CHAI. It is proof of the effectiveness of my one-man crusade.
In one of my earlier reports I had written this about Prakash Lasrado:
“His circulated letters contain so many false allegations, otherwise called slander, that it necessitates a separate report to answer them since my ignoring him might lead some to think that the man is correct…
He himself believes that yoga is a harmless, neutral, non-religious, aspiritual physical exercise, ‘My sisters have learnt Bharatnatyam MINUS the Hindu prayers” and “My father is also a homeopathic practioner
Since a greater portion of my ministry is dedicated to exposing homoeopathy as a New Age alternative therapy and both yoga and Bharatanatyam dance as emanating from the Hindu Sanatana Dharma [see Bharatanatyam and Yoga
http://www.dhdi.free.fr/recherches/horizonsinterculturels/articles/bharatanatyamyoga.htm], it is no surprise that the man has made me the object of his bile and vitriol.”
This writer, a Catholic apologist, has been in ministry since May 1982, fulltime since the mid 1990s.
This ministry is in the business of saving souls by helping disseminate Catholic teachings and exposing error — New Age, liturgical, doctrinal, etc. when such error is practised and propagated — and not abjured — by those who are in positions of leadership in the Church and capable of influencing others to do wrong.
We do so by appealing to Catholic teaching (the CCC, Roman Documents, etc.), citing the interpretations and opinions of conservative and orthodox Catholics worldwide.
We also explain and defend Catholic positions on various issues, sacramentals, purgatory and indulgences to name just three.
This ministry has received a calling as in Jeremiah 1: 5 and a commission as in Isaiah 30:8.
We have many priests who are in correspondence with us despite our unpopular mission.
We are in ministry not to please anyone or to be popular with anyone.
Neither are we in it for money; despite living by faith for over 20 years, this ministry has never solicited money, never made an appeal for donations.
Exposing the fruitless works of darkness to light (Ephesians 5:11) is a thankless and dangerous occupation.
We are in confrontation with the kingdom of darkness every minute of the day.
It is but natural to expect that we will face rejection, slander, hostility, threats, and spiritual warfare.
That we have to write about Prakash Lasrado every now and then is most unfortunate.
On this occasion, it was necessitated by his writing to Rome and to a list of bishops and priests that this ministry was “spreading rumours and raising false alarms” about the distorted crucifix at St. Mary’s Catholic Church, Dubai. He was wrong in his allegations. As always.
In a way, we have to express our gratitude to Prakash Lasrado for the publicity that he has given our ministry by reaching our reports to Church prelates and clerics who are not on our mailing list.
CONTINUED FROM PAGE 5, UPDATE NOVEMBER 13, 2014
I wrote to a parishioner of St. Mary’s Church, Dubai, along with the draft of this report:
I cannot understand how the Tabernacle can be created suddenly in a renovated church. It must have been there all along, at the time the first video was made, October 24. If it was there, why is it not visible in the two videos, why was the bishop’s back turned to it if it is in the cave behind the presidential seat, why are the priests at the two Holy Masses not bowing towards it, and why did the Facebook posts say it was not there on even on October 25? -Michael
Clarification received with sketch of the altar area from the parishioner:
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 11:08 AM
Subject: Re: DRAFT OF THIRD REPORT ATTACHED ON DISTORTED CROSS
The Tabernacle is on the left hand side of the cave-like structure. It was not open when the videos were taken.
Yes you are right in your judgement that it is not clearly visible or noticeable.
It is a matter of grave concern and sadness that “The Living Body of Jesus” is not given utmost reverence.
There is only a sacramental lamp. However a normal visitor who does not witness the opening of the Tabernacle can never notice its presence.
The parishioners who have commented on the Facebook page have not seen it as it is not clearly visible and because it was opened only later on after their comments were put up.
I cannot send you pictures of it as it is a part of the cave-like structure behind the crucifix.
The rectangular opening where the Bishop is sitting (in the video) is the Presidential chair. There is nothing behind it.
Most of the priests celebrating the masses here are not sitting on the Presidential chair. It looks like they do not like the idea either. It was probably the decision of the interior designer and the outgoing parish priest to having the Presidential chair up there. I don’t support this idea either.
See attached rough sketch to give you an idea of where the Tabernacle is.
STEPS TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CHAIR
Categories: Liturgical Abuses