The “Fourth Secret” drama continues

In the continuing drama of the "Fourth Secret" of Fatima (that is, the part of th Third Secret which hasn’t been revealed by the Holy See) read this from CWN:

Italian journalists protest exclusion from Fatima discussion

Rome, Sep. 27, 2007 (CWNews.com) – Two Italian journalists involved in a dispute over the content of the "third secret of Fatima" have complained that they were roughly treated by security guards when they attempted to attend a lecture in which Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone (bio – news) discussed that topic.  [Card. Bertone is the bete noir for some of the writers on the Third Secret.]

On September 21, Cardinal Bertone introduced his book, The Last Fatima Visionary: My Meetings with Sister Lucia, at a reception at the Pontifical Urbanianum University. Antonio Socci and Solideo Paolini, authors of competing books on Fatima, say that they were prevented from attending the event or speaking to the cardinal.

Socci and Paolini report that they asked Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press office, whether they could participate in the reception and question Cardinal Bertone about his book. When they were told that the cardinal would not take questions, the two journalists tried to confront the Vatican Secretary of State [LOL!] as he entered the room. Security guards hustled them out of the building, while Cardinal Bertone entered by a side door.

After the confrontation, Socci told reporters that the treatment he had received was "outrageous." In speaking to reporters at the event, Socci and Paolini produced a tape recording in which Archbishop Loris Capovilla, who once served as private secretary to Pope John XXIII, revealed that there were two texts of the "third secret."

Socci, in his popular book The Fourth Secret of Fatima, argues [convincingly] that the Vatican has not disclosed the entirety of the message given by the Virgin Mary to three children at Fatima. In his book Cardinal Bertone cites Sister Luica, one of the Fatima seers, who counters: "Everything has been published; no secret remains."

FacebookEmailPinterestGoogle GmailShare/Bookmark

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in SESSIUNCULA. Bookmark the permalink.

79 Responses to The “Fourth Secret” drama continues

  1. MJ says:

    This has now become certifiably ludicrous.

    When you have Vatican security behaving like THUGS and forcibly restraining Catholic journalists, you KNOW that something is being hidden.

    Likewise for Cardinal Bertone’s deliberate evading of a man–Socci–whom he knows very well.

    I recall that when Cardinal Bertone appeared on that Italian television show with a number of others attempting to “debunk” Socci’s book, he held up the envelope for the “official” released secret on which was written, to the effect, by Sr. Lucia “To be revealed in 1960 by explicit order of Our Lady.” This was, to repeat, held up on national television.

    The Vatican’s official version says that it was Sr. Lucia’s idea to reveal things in 1960, not the Blessed Virgin’s.

    What happens when people attempt to spin a complex web of half-truths, mental reservations, and plain lies about a matter whose content is, at times, empirically verifiable (e.g., the non-conversion of Russia) is that, eventually, the truth will come to light.

    Perhaps not coincidentally, the problems with Fatima are heating up at the same time the Traditional Mass has been freed.

  2. Chris says:

    I think it is worth mentioning that Akita, Japan is a fully approved apparition site that is often overlooked, and has been compared to Fatima. There, Our Lady did not mince her words…

  3. Berolinensis says:

    Father, I have tried to THINK before posting, but I can’t help feeling, by your introductory sentence and the “convincingly” that you are actually insinuating that Card. Bertone and the present Holy Father – who was responsible for revealing the third secret at the order of his predecessor – as well as previous Popes are lying to the Church and to the world. As this is impossible, could you please clarify.

  4. Arieh says:

    Has Socci’s work ever been translated into English (or French)? I have heard his arguments are airtight, but I would like to see for myself.

  5. William says:

    the two journalists tried to confront the Vatican Secretary of State as he entered the room.

    It sounds to me like they deserved to be tossed. I’d throw them out myself if they acted like jerks and I’m not a thug.

  6. Jonathan Bennett says:

    When I see a convincing argument for why Rome would withold the rest of the Secret, I might attempt to believe some of this.

  7. Malta says:

    Could the “missing” portion of the Third Secret have been revealed to a holy nun in Japan (an order dedicated to the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist)?

    On April 22, 1984, the late Bishop John Shojiro Ito of the Diocese of Niigata, Japan, signed a pastoral letter authorizing “the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.” In this letter, Bishop Ito recounted the apparently miraculous events of tears and blood flowing from a carved wooden statue of our Lady, located at Akita in the convent chapel of the Institute of the Handmaids of the Eucharist, and the restoration of the hearing of Sr. Agnes Sasagawa. The letter also included three messages claimed to have been given to Sr. Agnes by our Lady, seemingly coming from that same wooden statue. The third message came on an anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun in Fatima, October 13, 1973, as follows:
    My dear daughter, listen well to what I have to say to you. You will inform your superior.
    As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by my Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the bishops and the priests.
    The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against other bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres, churches and altars sacked, the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.
    The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them.
    Bishop Ito added that: “This message is based on the condition that if men do not repent and better themselves…” (Teiji Yasula, O.S.V., trans. John M. Haffert, Akita: The Tears and Message of Mary [101 Foundation, 1989], pp. 190-199).

    A former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, Howard Dee, said in a 1998 interview with Inside the Vatican magazine, “Bishop Ito was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima, and Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.”

  8. BK says:

    Comment by Berolinensis: “by your introductory sentence and the “convincingly” that you are actually insinuating that Card. Bertone and the present Holy Father – who was responsible for revealing the third secret at the order of his predecessor – as well as previous Popes are lying to the Church and to the world. As this is impossible, could you please clarify.”

    Solideo Paolini, referred to in this article, had a fairly reasonable explanation for this aspect of your question:

    “Maybe they say that everything has been published, with this meaning:“Everything we thought was the authentic Third Secret, so everything we thought was said by Our Lady, we’ve published it. While instead what we deemed as not authentic, not a revelation from Heaven but mere thoughts of Sister Lucy, we didn’t publish. We have considered these thoughts of Sister Lucy not to be a secret from Heaven, therefore we have discarded them from a supernatural point of view.”

    Such an explanation would give an explanation to the repeated claim, by the Vatican, that they have published and revealed everything about the Third Secret, while taking into account the evident proofs that something, indeed, is missing. We will see later on, in my last meeting with Archbishop Capovilla, how he explicitly confirmed to me this thesis, this interpretation of the matter…”

  9. BK says:

    Comment by Jonathan Bennett: “When I see a convincing argument for why Rome would withold the rest of the Secret, I might attempt to believe some of this.”

    Another good question might be,

    “What in the content of the Third Secret, as revealed in 2000 by the Vatican, was worth postponing 40 years to publish?

    Here is the text published in 2000:

    “After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

  10. I should think that the word of the Holy Father (who is the final judge regarding private revelation) and the last living seer should be sufficient to close the issue.

    What is ludicrous is not the restraint placed on obsessive journalists, but rather the persistence of those who will not be convinced.

    WAC

  11. Matt Robinson says:

    I believe that the official story, just doesn’t add up myself. Now I’m not imputing anything to anyone, beyond regular everyday frailties and human weaknesses.

    I just cannot see how wthe meaning of what was revealed in 2000 can be termed as being “clear” in any sense. It is beyond cryptic.

    Our Lady in light of Catholic doctrine on private revelations, is not the Oracle of Delphi for goodness sakes. She actually has a cogent message when authentic apparitions take place!

    How does the 2000 message square with the one Our Lady said “would become more clear” around 1960?

  12. Fr. Scott Bailey, C.Ss.R. says:

    I am very much devoted to Our Lady and have been since I was a young boy. I accept the veracity of those revelations and apparitions that have received approval by the Church. That being said, I think we need to remember that the revelations of Our Lady at Fatima and other places are private revelation and are not in any way necessary for salvation. It seems, however, that some would give them even more importance than the Gospel.

    What is quite disheartening is that Satan is using the revelations of Fatima to cause division and rancor in the Church. The very fact that their are secrets, never mind their contents, have been used by Satan to foment arguements and bad feelings which seem rather pervasive. Clearly this is not what Our Lady had in mind!

    The message of Fatima (and others) is one of prayer, penance and conversion. Yet rather than be about the business of fulfilling these requests there are many who would rather talk about them ad nauseum. I do not mean to say that discussion of them is not a good and necessary thing, but they were not given to us for discussion. They were given to us to act upon.

    St Alphonsus teaches us that meditation and prayer must lead to action if it is to be truly prayer. That’s the point of moral theology. Our meditations must bring us to affections which in turn lead to resolutions… actions. If we don’t ACT upon them, then our prayer is fruitless. The Mass is not and isolated liturgical prayer but one that must lead us to ACT… we must LIVE the Mass. So too with the Fatima revelations. We must ACT on them. The power of Fatima is not in the messages themselves, but in what will be effected when they are acted on. The secrets of Fatima are useless if they do not spur us to ACT on the message. But we don’t need the Fatima secrets just as we don’t need the message. They are a gift to us from a loving Mother, a reminder of what Christ himself gave us in the Gospel.

    Enough talk. Talk will not save us nor change the world. Action will. Pray. Do penance. Convert. If Fatima is important to you, forget the secrets, forget the speculation, forget the arguements and do what Our Lady requested. Otherwise Satan wins.

  13. Jordan Potter says:

    Socci and Paolini tried to confront Cardinal Bertone? Sounds like the conduct of cranks to me?

    As for the claim that there were two texts of the Third Secret, does that mean that there were two versions of the Third Secret? And if so, does that mean that one version was less faithful in communicating what Our Lady revealed?

    Chris said:
    I think it is worth mentioning that Akita, Japan is a fully approved apparition site that is often overlooked.

    No, Akita is certainly not “fully approved.”

    http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/akita/akita.html

  14. chris K says:

    A lot of Fr. Gruner followers here!

    I like the quote of Sr. Lucia that, paraphrased, went something like “all these people writing about some fourth secret or other third…well, if they know more, then they should print it! As for me all that was revealed by the Vatican is complete”. I believe that Pope JPII emphasized that Fatima was for the last century, but that its messages re: prayer and reparation must continue and may be even more important for the world entering this century.

    In the account of the meeting between Sr. Lucia, Archbishop Bertone, and Bishop Serafim, Bishop of Leiria-Farima she was asked why she wrote on the envelope of the secret that it could be opened only after 1960 she replied ” It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood.” She said that she wrote down what she saw but it wasn’t up to her to interpret it, but for the Pope.

    The newer visions mentioned above could be interpreted in the sense of the farewell discourse of the Lord when, leaving his disciples, he said: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.”

    Of course visions/prophecies are not written in stone – “predicted” events can be mitigated through prayer and sacrifice. Perhaps that is why the “Mother guided the bullet” that could have had a more final ending.

  15. chris K says:

    Re: Akita…actually approval is accepted on the basis of the local bishop unless Rome would itself interfere. So as the structure for approval is set up, Akita is as approved as it can be! I wouldn’t cite theotokos as a reliable objective source – they seem to find obscure opinions to back their own.

    Approval of the local Bishop

    After having himself been an eyewitness of the events, and having carefully investigated them for years, Most Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata (the diocese Akita belongs to) declared the events of Akita, Japan, to be of supernatural origin, and authorized throughout the entire diocese the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, in a long message which he ordered to be read in every parish of his diocese on Easter Sunday, April 22, 1984.. He said: “The Message of Akita is the Message of Fatima.”

    Approval of Rome

    Bishop Ito went to Rome a third time in June of 1988 to seek the opinion of the Holy See. “I was worried because of the seriousness of the Message,” he said. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, reassured Bishop Ito that he had acted properly, and gave definitive judgement on the Akita events and Messages as reliable and worthy of belief.

    From:
    The Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio:

    Out of the 386 apparitions, the Church has decided that “yes” there is a supernatural character only in 8 cases: Fatima (Portugal), Beauraing (Belgium), Banneux (Belgium), Akita (Japan), Syracuse (Italy), Zeitoun (Egypt), Manila (Philippines) (according to some sources), and Betania (Venezuela). Local bishops have approved of the faith expression at the sites where these 8 apparitions occurred.

  16. moretben says:

    Fr. Scott Bailey,

    Thank you. You’re absolutely right.

    Pray for me.

  17. Jeffry says:

    It now seems that the journalists have a credibility problem.

    I have a friend who was like a bible thumper talking in favor of Soci and Paolini. He and other friends met with Archbishop Capovilla on Tuesday the 25th of September. What he said did not support what the journalists are saying. In fact, as I understand it, Socci did not even try to contact Archbishop Capovilla. And what Capovilla said was taken out of context when responding to the question about the two different dossiers of the secret, that if there was a different dossier, he didn’t know about it. That is not saying that there was a second dossier. I have not read the book nor have I listened to the tape of the interview, but my friend who spoke to Capovilla completely changed his attitude after the meeting and no longer supported the journalists. There is much that we do not know but I have faith in our Pope who knows what is being discussed in the public forum. Jeffry

  18. Angels stole my phonebox says:

    Can anyone tell me if there is a definitive ‘protocol’ by which the Church judges and approves apparitions? If so, what are the stages of it?- eg I think it begins with a judgement by the local ordinary, presumably ending with full Vatican approval. I ask this because in this internet age, it is actually very difficult to sieve the often conflicting information on how ‘approved’ an apparition is. Also there are those who will (incorrectly I think) claim that with as yet unapproved apparitions, the (official) negative judgement of the local ordinary can be disregarded while they will accept the positive (non-official) personal opinion of a Pope. Thanks!

  19. Joe says:

    Ferrara gives a good exposition of the claims of Socci: http://fatimaondemand.org/brazil_07/en/audiofiles/en-6.wma

  20. James says:

    Fr. Scott Bailey,

    You words bring peace, they satisfy reason, they satisfy the heart.

    Why should we believe the Pope’s are misleading the flock when everything I have seen and read from JPII and BXVI is wonderful beyond description, and has borne such good fruit.

    Mary is not so ineffective that she leaves us in confusion and suspicion. They are for people who choose them. But what Mary wants from us is crystal clear–repentance and prayer.

    Fr Bailey said it much better than I can. God bless you Fr.

  21. Antonius says:

    Could someone clarify why we should care at all and also point out where the connection to the traditional movement is (if any)?

  22. Jordan Potter says:

    Chris K said: Re: Akita…actually approval is accepted on the basis of the local bishop unless Rome would itself interfere. So as the structure for approval is set up, Akita is as approved as it can be!

    No, alleged apparitions are not to be assumed to be authentic only on the local bishop’s approval. And anyway, in the case of Akita, the local bishop is careful to tell everyone that the Holy See has never approved Akita, contradicting the claims of Akita’s supporters that the Holy See has approved the alleged apparitions.

    I wouldn’t cite theotokos as a reliable objective source – they seem to find obscure opinions to back their own.

    Do you have any reason for your skepticism other than the fact that what theotokos reports contradicts what you apparently believe about Akita?

    Granted, different sources will make different claims about the status of various alleged apparitions. For instance, Miraclehunter.com lists Akita as approved, but also lists the obviously spurious Lady of All Nations apparitions of Amsterdam as approved despite the fact that they were condemned by the Holy See (and later partially approved by the local bishop without authorisation from the Holy See which had already rendered a judgment that only the Holy See can reverse, not a local bishop), and also lists the spurious Medjugorje apparitions as approved even though the judgment of the local bishops is that there’s no reason to believe they are of a supernatural character (and both Amsterdam and Medjugorje are tainted by undeniably false predictions). So we can’t trust Miraclehunter.com. But the theotokos website kindly informs everyone of the Church’s guidelines for apparitions, and applies those guidelines correctly and consistently.

    http://www.theotokos.org.uk/pages/unapprov/unapprov.html

  23. Jason B says:

    Comment by Berolinensis: “by your introductory sentence and the “convincingly” that you are actually insinuating that Card. Bertone and the present Holy Father – who was responsible for revealing the third secret at the order of his predecessor – as well as previous Popes are lying to the Church and to the world. As this is impossible, could you please clarify?”

    It does seem that Cardinal Ratzinger’s explanation regarding the final revelation of the third secret in 2000 rather contradict earlier comments which he made regarding the contents of the secret.

    The cited article could be dismissed by some because of an association with Father Gruner, but the page does include a scan of the original interview with Cardinal Ratzinger, as published in 1984, making it a little harder to dismiss outright. So, the question is ~ who is wrong: Cardinal Ratzinger 1984, or Cardinal Ratzinger 2000?

  24. dcs says:

    chris K writes:
    A lot of Fr. Gruner followers here!

    One needn’t be a “Fr. Gruner follower” to believe that the official story doesn’t quite make sense. I recall Mother Angelica publicly expressing her doubt that the entirety of the Third Secret had been revealed. As unhelpful as it is that some people make Fatima the litmus test for orthodoxy, it is also unhelpful that those who have doubts about the official story are dismissed out of hand.

  25. Jason B says:

    Re: the comment by Jordan Potter. Jordan, you mention the condemned apparitions of the lady of All Nations (which are utterly condemned by the Holy See beyond any rehabilitation by the local Bishop) as well as the extremely troublesome Medjugorje; and it highlights one of the particular problems I have with accepting the messages of Akita, and also the ‘weeping statue of Civitavecchia’, both of which seem to have received approval from the local bishop. How could Akita and Civitavecchia possibly be considered authentic? Is it at all possible that God would use the images from condemned apparitions as the objects of miraculous prodigies? And wouldn’t Episcopal approval of these prodigies lead, by inference, to a belief in the condemned ‘parent apparitions’? I ask this because the image of Akita is none other than that of the condemned ‘lady of All Nations’ and the Civitavecchia image is the ‘lady’ of Medjugorje!

    Fr. Z, if you think this post is going to lead the discussion to a place where you’d rather it didn’t go, then would you please delete it :c).

  26. EVERYONE: Let’s leave Medjugorje out of this discussion, please. I will delete further comments about it.

  27. DoB says:

    Maybe it has been revealed but you won’t find it all in one particular document stating explicitly and rightly so. If I were the Pope I would consider it very dangerous to do this. The key is matching knowledge to response. It is better that people do not have knowledge if they are not predisposed to act. It is a matter of protection. Those who are prepared to act will recieve the knowledge that they require. Fr Scot Bailey is on the button. It’s a case of curiosity killing the cat.
    If you think things are going to the dogs, take out your Rosary and pray. This works. We all know it. We have been told. There is no excuse. We must do it.

  28. Fr. Stephen says:

    Thank you Matt Robinson and Father Scott Bailey for your sensible remarks. Our Lady is, indeed, not the Oracle of Delphi and she is dishonored by all this “grunerite” nonsense. Praised be Jesus Christ who is THE Word of God.

  29. Bernard says:

    Antonio; “Where is the connection to the traditionalist
    movement”

    Students of Fatima have argued for 30 years that the Third
    Secret prophesies and warns against the changes in the Church
    since 1960.Allegedly Cardinal Ratzinger has told a few people
    that the Secret forewarns an ‘evil Council’ introducing
    changes to the Liturgy, changes to the Mass and Sacraments
    resulting in a crisis of Faith in the Church. This,I think
    would explain Pope John XXIIIs decision to not publish it.
    My personal opinion is that along with the text made public
    in 2000 there was an attachment, an ‘annotation’ or explanation
    of the Bishop in White vision, begining with the well-known
    phrase “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always be
    preserved etc.” Pope John resealed the documents stating
    uncertainty whether the words came from Our Lady or Sr.Lucia.
    In other words the Vatican thought Lucia had ‘dreamt up’
    an explanation for the vision. This seems to be the official
    line on the Third Secret.

  30. chris K says:

    No, alleged apparitions are not to be assumed to be authentic only on the local bishop’s approval. And anyway, in the case of Akita, the local bishop is careful to tell everyone that the Holy See has never approved Akita, contradicting the claims of Akita’s supporters that the Holy See has approved the alleged apparitions.

    The “supporters” – those following the usual steps established for belief in apparitions by the Church do not have to wait for some personally announced blessing by the Vatican. It IS the local bishop’s pronouncements that give guidance to believers re: the fact that nothing goes against Church teachings. No one is forced to believe in private revelations. It is rare that the Vatican would step in against the local bishop’s authority on this unless it sees some kind of non-objective judgment. You seem to be placing some unreachable and therefore some kind of guilt producing standard for those who simply follow Church guidelines. As the most trustworthy Marian library stated – Akita is included in those rarely stated “supernatural” evidenced places by the Church. You can’t be holier than the Church!

    Can anyone tell me if there is a definitive ‘protocol’ by which the Church judges and approves apparitions? If so, what are the stages of it?- eg I think it begins with a judgement by the local ordinary, presumably ending with full Vatican approval.

    http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//resources/aprtable.html

    Notice that “bishop pronouncement” and “church” are used together when speaking of private revelation/apparition judgment. So speaking of Church approval as something different from the local bishop’s statement can be misleading. In fact, in the case of private revelation, it can happen that one bishop may place things in a neutral/see what happens position and he can be followed by another bishop who pronounces approval. You will then look to the most recent pronouncement. Obviously some get better known than others by their more universal quality of messages or prophecies.

    Do you have any reason for your skepticism other than the fact that what theotokos reports contradicts what you apparently believe about Akita?

    Well, as you can see, it is not what I “personally believe”, but rather what the Church has judged and that apparently is what this particular site often dismisses in favor of other opinions they put forth, citing random authors, etc. I have had email discussions with those connected to theotokos re: statements from hierarchical reps of those appointed secretariats that they refuse to accept because of their own particular acceptance of other opinions.

    Jordon Potter, re: Our Lady of All Nations of Amsterdam, it has not been condemned by the Vatican. Perhaps you are confusing them with another group using the name which recently has been in the news and which HAS been condemned.

    Latest pronouncement on Amsterdam:

    http://www.de-vrouwe.net/english/index.html

    In fact the approved Akita apparitions/messages are closely tied to Amsterdam and use the same image of Our Lady that they adopted from Our Lady of All Nations.

    In the chapel of the Institute of the Handmaids of the Eucharist there was and still is a small three foot carved statue of the Blessed Mother. Curiously, the statue is an exact replica of the image of the Lady of All Nations. Prior to Sr. Sasagawa entering into the community of the Handmaids of the Eucharist, the sisters there apparently had a devotion to Our Mother, under Her title as the “Lady of All Nations: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate.” Eventually, they commissioned a sculptor to carve the statue. Don’t forget Sr. Agnes was new to the community and knew very little about its history and certainly was not at the time acquainted with the significance of the statue nor the messages associated with the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam! This statue which is now referred to as the Lady of Akita began to shed blood intermittently, and at times profusely, from the right palm on July 6, 1973, the first Friday of the month up until July 27, 1973. And 2 years later, on January 4, 1975, lachrymations began to flow from the statue of Our Lady’s face, a visible sign of Her Sorrowful Heart! The statue continued to weep at intervals and sometimes voluminously for a period of 101 times. The tears of Our Lady ceased on the feast of Our Lady of Sorrows, September 15, 1981!

    Really, the safest place for actual facts according to what stances the Church has taken IS the International Marian Library located at the University of Dayton but separate from it.

    http://campus.udayton.edu/mary//marymission.html

    http://campus.udayton.edu/mary/

  31. Martha says:

    “The message of Fatima (and others) is one of prayer, penance and conversion. Yet rather than be about the business of fulfilling these requests there are many who would rather talk about them ad nauseum. I do not mean to say that discussion of them is not a good and necessary thing, but they were not given to us for discussion. They were given to us to act upon.” -Fr. Bailey.

    Exactly, Father! Our Lady produced a stupendous miracle so that ALL WOULD BELIEVE HER MESSAGE AND ACT ON IT. Lay people have their responsiblity, i.e. First Saturday devotions, scapular, rosary. And also there is an important part for the hierarchy–something lay people cannot do—CONSECRATE Russia, by name, specifically as Our Lady requested. That has not been done. Those who say it has been done, make of our lady a liar, because the results she PROMISED for fulfillment of her requests have not been seen.

    If Catholics cannot believe a pope can lead the flock astray, just remember Peter who deserted Christ. Along with him went the others, except St. John. The late Doctor Marra used to warn about “papolatry”. It is good to remember this from time to time.

    There is too, too, much contradiction between what is currently being say by the Vatican regarding Fatima’s message and the previous information which had already been published and accepted as truth. Any right thinking soul would of course have to wonder. It is not very smart to believe that what you had been told was “white” is now “black”, and to accept such contradictions without question. Read and think, and pray.

    Volumes have been written on Fatima,long before Fr. Gruner started. So if you would dismiss anything Fr. Gruner would have to say on the subject, read other authors; for example Frere Michel, and anything put out by the Abbe de Nantes. The information is there for ANYONE seriously wanting to know the truth about Fatima.

  32. Berolinensis says:

    I very much agree with Fr. Bailey and James. This is an unhealthy discussion. I would again, in all humbleness, ask Fr. Z to clarify his statements, since to impute intentional lies and misleading to the Pope and our ecclesiastical superiors is causing scandal for the faithful, which coming from someone who is so widely read and esteemed (not least by myself) among faithful Catholics is no light matter.

  33. Diane says:

    Fr. Scott Bailey: Thank you for your enlightening and spot-on post.

    Furthermore, had the journalists not “confronted” anyone, they probably would not have been put out the way they were. They brought it on themselves. It’s one thing to make a request; it’s another to use force as a means to get what you want.

  34. Geoffrey says:

    I agree with Fr. Bailey 110%!

  35. jim says:

    In the akita message it says something about compromising bisops. Look at todays news from the state of Conn.

  36. Brian Mershon says:

    I have read more on both sides of this topic than I care to admit. I have read LOTS.

    Two things are clear. Pope John Paul II did not die after being shot. Therefore, he is not the Pope of the secret. THe secret says he dies. Pope John Paul I, however, did die. And no one really knows how.

    No. 2. Russia has never been consecrated by name. That is a fact. No matter how many consecrations, entrustmentss, etc. have been attempted. Russia has never been named. They have not converted to the one, true Faith.

  37. danphunter1 says:

    “In the Akita message it says something about compromising bishops”.
    Look at many of the worlds bishops since Our Lady’s message at Akita, period.

  38. Martin says:

    I am not an expert in anything much, and certainly not Marian apparitions, but are we missing something? The Church is not a democracy. Never has been, hopefully never will be. We, the faithful, guided by the Magisterium, rely ultimately on the Pope as our shepherd in this life. There have been bad Popes, and no doubt there will be again, but the Church has survived. We are all aware of poor (human) decisions being made at various points. If we are deliberately led astray, then that person knowingly puts HIS immortal soul in peril, not ours. Some of this discussion (and I am not referring to this thread, but rather to the thousands of sites relating to apparitions) verges on the sort of conspiracy theories that most right-thinking people would deplore in any other context, whether it related to such things as 9/11 or Zionism or Genetically Modified Crops. We are called to ascertain the truth and follow it. If you accept SOME of the claims made about Fatima, whether made in good faith or not, then you are essentially condemning every Pope since at least Pius XI.

    Either the whole ascertainable truth of Fatima has been revealed, in which case no number of statements from the Vatican will ever allay some people’s concerns, or it has not. If not, then Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have all acted to either deceive us or protect us. If that is indeed the case, then I believe it is the latter. Just as Christ never dictated chapter and verse of the whole course of human history, neither should we act as if every one of the billion faithful have an inalienable right to know and comment on every decision made by the Vatican. There is no Vatican City Freedom of Information Act, nor should there be. The c.17,000 Protestant sects in the US show us the result of individual pride and arrogance. Decisions are made, we can agree or disagree, lobby or accept. The Holy Father is the decision maker, the monarch responsible for us all.

    I believe Mary has appeared many times to the faithful, and the transmitted messages are sometimes not clear or conclusive. To suggest that ‘the Vatican’ would hide something of great import to all Catholics which had been ordered to be revealed is simply not sustainable nor logical. If we accept such a thesis we risk becoming like those in ‘alternative’ traditions or in the hostile secular establishment.

  39. RBrown says:

    Pope John Paul II did not die after being shot. Therefore, he is not the Pope of the secret. THe secret says he dies. Pope John Paul I, however, did die. And no one really knows how.
    Comment by Brian Mershon

    Is the secret a prediction?

  40. RBrown says:

    Let me correct that:

    Is the secret an unconditional prediction?

  41. Sue Sims says:

    And don’t forget that the assassination of JFK was masterminded by the same people (all Jews, Freemasons and Illuminati – sorry, forgot the Communists, or are they now out of the equation?) who planned the Twin Towers’ downfall, faked the moon landings, replaced Pope Paul VI by a double, organised the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, AND are behind all the False Apparitions of Our Lady (choose the ones you prefer). It’s the New World Order: all laid out in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

    OK, I know that I’m mocking something which many (including on this list) take deadly seriously, but honestly, to a convert like myself, it all seems such an extraordinary waste of time and spiritual energy, this business of the Third Secret. I’m with Fr. Bailey.

  42. Chironomo says:

    The issue of the conversion (consecration?) of Russia… could this be the reason for the recent “stepping up” of efforts towards re-unification with the Orthodox Churches? If so, this would put Summorum in a very different light, with less emphasis on reconciliation with the Lefevrites, and a greater emphasis on the issue of the Eastern Orthodox Churches. It is a little disconcerting (to me at least)that the issue of Fatima would have such a concrete impact on the Vatican’s actions, but then again I don’t have that envelope in my hands, do I?

  43. “Russia has… not converted to the one, true Faith.”

    Yet.

  44. danphunter1 says:

    Brian Mershon,
    If Our Blessed Mother asked that Russia be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart,why hasn’t it been accomplished yet?
    Seems as if the Church should obey the Mother of God and the Church’s own Mother.
    God bless you.

  45. Jason B says:

    I know that this is nothing to do with the Fatima discussion but just to clarify a comment of Chris K: “that Our Lady of All Nations of Amsterdam has not been condemned by the Vatican.”

    For your reference, it has, on numerous occasions been condemned by the ‘Holy Office’; for example:

    The Holy Office: (Prot. N.511/53)

    AFTER CAREFUL CONSULTATION THE HOLY OFFICE HAS DECIDED, THAT THE CASE IS DEFINITELY CLEAR AND THAT ONE SHOULD RETRACT FROM THE SUBJECT: THE MESSAGES ARE FALSE AND REMAIN FORBIDDEN FOR PUBLICATION.

    Shortly after the renewed dismissal the Congregation of the Holy Office communicated (to the Bishop of Haarlem, Aug 25th 1961): ‘…WE DO HOWEVER MEAN THAT THE CASE NOW IS CLOSED FOR GOOD AND THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY.

    From L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO. JUNE 27. 1974
    Headline: Notification by Sac. Congregation regarding alleged apparitions

    “With regard to the alleged apparitions and revelations of “Our Lady of All Nations”, said to have taken place in Amsterdam, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith considers it advisable to make the following declaration.

    On 7 May 1956, the Bishop of the Diocese of Haarlem (Netherlands), following on a careful examination of the case concerning the supposed apparitions and revelations of “Our Lady of All Nations”, declared that he “found no evidence of the supernatural nature of the apparitions”. He therefore prohibited public veneration of the picture of ‘Our Lady of All Nations” and the spreading of writings which attributed a supernatural origin to these apparitions and revelations.

    On 2 March 1957, the same Ordinary repeated the above statement. The Holy Office, in a letter dated 13 March of the same year, praised the Bishop’s prudence and pastoral concern and approved of the measures taken. Moreover, in reply to an appeal of the Bishop of Haarlem, dated 29 March 1972, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 24 May of the same year, confirmed the previous decision on the matter.
    At the present time, following on further developments and after a fresh and deeper examination of the case, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith confirms by the present notification the judgment already expressed the competent ecclesiastical authority, and invites priests and laity to discontinue all forms of propaganda with regard to the alleged apparitions and revelations of ‘Our Lady of All Nations”, It exhorts all, moreover, to express their devotion to the Most Holy Virgin, Queen of the Universe (cf. Encyclical Letter “Ad Caeli Reginam”, A.A.S. 1954, pp. 625-640) by forms of piety which are recognized and recommended by the Church.

    Rome 25 May 1974″

    On April 26, 1987 (thirteen years later) JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER CONFIRMED EXPLICITLY THE VALIDITY OF THE DECLARATION OF MAY 1974 AND DECLARED THAT THE ‘DECLARATION’ OF THE CONGREGATION DATED MAY 25 1974 (IN ACCORDANCE With L’OSSERVATORE ROMANO OF 14-15 JUNE 1974: see above), CONCERNING THE SO-CALLED APPARITIONS OF AMSTERDAM HAS NOT BEEN REVOKED OR MODIFIED AND THEREFORE REMAINS COMPLETELY IN FORCE.

    These decisions of the ‘Holy Office’ are taken in unison with the continued condemnations of all the previous Bishops of the Diocese of Haarlem. It is hard to see how, in the face of all of the above, that the current bishop can suddenly see a case for approval.

  46. Michael says:

    To everyone here that is calumniating and ridiculing Fr. Gruner and others who are trying to spread the Message of Fatima, please stop! Look at the evidence yourself, it’s all on http://www.fatima.org and other places. Consider this as well, if Fatima is just an unimportant private revelation, then why did 70,000+ eye witnesses see the miracle of the sun? As for Our Lady of Akita, it is APPROVED and AUTHENTIC, so quit saying that it isn’t! Akita is an implicit reference to the unreleased text of the Third Secret of Fatima. It is about the crisis of faith in the Church and the weak popes and bad bishops and priests (not all of course) that we have been given as a punishment from God. That is what you have to realize, God has allowed bad people to be our shepherds to punish us for our sins. My bretheren, please take an honest look into this issue! We have to wake up. Yes, Fatima is a call for prayer and penance, but it is a call to the whole Church! Our Lady was trying to warn us about the dangers that would come. For those who say, “it is impossible that the Pope or Cardinals would keep this from us,” do you really believe that a pope or the cardinals in the Vatican are infalliably preserved from sin or imprudence??? WAKE UP and LOOK AROUND YOU! Are we in a “springtime” or are we in a crisis? Has Russia been converted? Bretheren, I beg you, please don’t brush this off and continue to live in an imaginary “springtime” and join the cause of Our Lady of Fatima to save souls. Pray very much for the Holy Father, the bishops and priests! By the way, in case anyone wants to accuse me of being “unfaithful” to our Pope Benedict XVI, and our bishops and priests, let me say that I LOVE our Pope, our bishops, and our priests! I pray for them all frequently! But as long as they ignore Our Lady’s Message, the more suffering they and all of us will endure! Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us! St. Joseph, pray for us! Blessed Francisco Marto and Jacinta Marto of Fatima, pray for us!

  47. danphunter1 says:

    Michael,
    Well said. God bless you. Please pray for all of us as I will you.
    Our Blessed Mother of Fatima pray for the Church.

  48. chris K says:

    Jason B., with all due respect, you really have to keep up with the most recent statements as well as what determines “condemnation” which you are tossing about so easily. Again, never “condemned”.

    Why you have to keep up with all of the information – just like the bishops have to!:

    In principle and according to the guidelines of the Church, it is primarily the task of the local bishop to come to a judgment regarding the authenticity of a private revelation in his diocese. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith may then confirm this judgment, but this is not necessary. Three classifications are used to express the level of authenticity of a reported private revelation. “Constat de supernaturalitate” denotes that the apparitions are of supernatural origin; “Non constat de supernaturalitate” indicates that a supernatural origin has not been defined; and “Constat de non supernaturalitate” signifies that there is no supernatural origin to the reported apparitions.

    The Apparitions of the Lady of All Nations have never been condemned as “constat de non supernaturalitate,” either by any local bishop of Haarlem or by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has commonly confirmed the decisions of the local ordinary regarding the apparitions. For example, on March 13, 1957, the Holy Office confirmed disciplinary restrictions which were taken after investigation by Bishop Huibers, but added that it did not rule out the presentation of new information in the future. In May, 1974, the same Congregation confirmed that the status on the apparitions was “non constat de supernaturalitiate.”

    In the decades that followed, much new information was added to the documentation. With greater awareness of the apparitions worldwide and greater maturity of its international devotion over time, Bishop Henrick Bomers undertook a new step which marked the beginning of a new phase. In 1996, after consultation with the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Bishop Bomers in conjunction with his Auxiliary Bishop, Joseph Maria Punt, declared the approval of public devotion of the Lady of All Nations (May 31, 1996 open document), but without making a formal statement regarding authenticity .
    After over fifty years of the development of this devotion (inclusive of two major investigations), and over the period of six subsequent years following a careful and prayerful discernment of authenticity according to the appropriate theological, psychological, and spiritual criteria, Bishop J. M. Punt came to the conclusion that the Apparitions of the Lady of All Nations in Amsterdam consist of a “supernatural origin” (Declaration, May 31, 2002 open document). In the declaration itself and the accompanying pastoral letter, he makes the following notes:

    The recognition refers to the apparitions of Mary as the Lady of All Nations, during the years 1945 to 1959. These occurred in the presence of others and were immediately documented.
    The Bishop recognizes these apparitions as essentially authentic, as essentially of a supernatural origin. But he adds that the influence of the human factor remains, that the abilities and limitations of the visionary can have their own impact.
    The bishop recalls that a private revelation is never binding for the conscience of the faithful. Everyone has the freedom to give this devotion a place in his or her religious life or not.

    Numerous resources are available concerning the messages of the Lady of All Nations, the theological foundations for the doctrine and potential dogma of Mary, Co-redemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate, and the historical development of the position of the Church (open document ) regarding the apparitions.

    The Lady of All Nations Foundation
    Amsterdam, 2004

    and that 1961:

    WE DO HOWEVER MEAN THAT THE CASE NOW IS CLOSED FOR GOOD AND THAT FURTHER INVESTIGATIONS ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY.

    now then:

    II. Bishop A.E. van Dodewaard, 1960-1966
    Bishop Van Dodewaard acquainted himself with the files. By this time all the reported apparitions received by the visionary had ended on May 31, 1959 and had been included in the files. In the opinion of four professors of theology the case had not been sufficiently investigated, and they emphasized the fact that its investigation was not yet complete and conclusive. Therefore they made a request to the Holy Father in 1961 to reopen the case. The diocese then received a letter from the Holy Office, signed by its assessor, Parente (25-8-1961), stating that there was no opportunity for any further action. The letter confirmed the Bishop’s statement of 1956 as continuing to remain in force as well as the initial confirmation by the Holy Office in 1957.

    Unfortunately a misleading rendering of this letter is presently being circulated in the media. The 1961 letter of the Holy Office did not in any manner contain the phrases ‘the case has been definitely closed’ … and … ‘the messages are false and remain forbidden to publish’. Publications like this are causing unnecessary confusion.

    Always check the open documents as well as keep up with your dates. The seventies are now a bit dated compared to now a new century!!

  49. BK says:

    “I happen to be one of those people who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing.”

    –Mother Angelica, during 2001, on her live TV program on EWTN, in reference to the Third Secret as published by the Vatican in 2000.

    A very large proportion of traditional Catholics truly question whether the “whole thing” has indeed been released. If people were able to answer honestly, without fear of scorn or being mocked, its probable that an actual majority of traditional Catholics agree with Mother Angelica’s sentiments above. Clearly, Fr. Z believes Socci argues convincingly that the Vatican has not disclosed the entirety of the Third Secret.

    Fr. Z., Mother Angelica, and Socci are not Grunerites; It does no good to attempt to marginalize or denigrate good decent Catholics who feel there is more to be revealed in this regard.

  50. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    I also think it is clear that the whole secret has not been revealed, however, I certainly believe that Christ left Peter to run the Church and not our Lady. That does not mean I agree with everything his successor does, but it is his call and he will be the one judged for it. What I do not like though is the way that they are going after Socci. I have no doubt that they are not lying (ie they are making mental reservations, etc), but they are ruining this man’s reputation. Cardinal Bertone could clear up the entire situation by just reconciling what was said about the secret in the past and what has been said now. Unfortunately, I do not think that can be done, but I would be open to hearing it. Finally, I do think that Fr. Gruner has done a grave disservice to the cause, because he has tied things to the message and Fatima that are not necessary, ie his suspension for refusing to go to his bishop, and especially his conservative politics that insist that Russia is going to come back and take over the world militarily. He also insists that the secret must be about a type of WWIII. None off this is supported by what I have read, but rather it seems to me the secret speaks of the falling away of the great majority of the Church. And the devastated city in the vision that was released seems to me to more correctly reflect the spiritual death of the Catholics, than their physical deaths.

  51. Logically, the Third Secret has already quite clearly
    manifest.

    I cannot think of a greater chastisement which could
    befall the world, than what happened to the Church
    after 1960.

    This is the only historical event which became “clearer”
    after 1960.

    I do pray more as a result, need we say anything more?

    Perhaps Our Lady anticipated the secret being
    fudged, hence her wise advice that what she
    was speaking about “would become clearer after
    1960″ in case anyone was wondering.

    Pope’s are only human. They infallibly guard Public
    Revelation, but there’s nothing in their Divine job
    description to say they infallibly guard private revelation.

    Fatima’s warning was a bonus, but not a necessity, because
    any reasonable person could conclude that the 1960’s
    revolution was a seismic cultural event.

  52. chris K says:

    When you read the many books by Sr. Lucia you get the idea that what she wants to emphasize is what the Church teaches: obedience; prayer; and what Fr. Fox has said many times: Fatima is all about reparation, reparation, reparation…before it’s too late; for our own sakes. It would appear that it’s the interpretation of the vision of the 3rd secret that people are speculating upon. Sr. Lucia said she gave it as she saw it and that it was up to the Church/Pope to interpret.

    She has spoken to the Consecration of 1984 which many don’t feel fulfilled the demands, as “accepted by heaven” while she spoke to the previous consecrations as not “accepted”. She never said it was perfect but that the Holy Father did all that he could to try to fulfill it in the milieu of the times. And the rather sudden collapse of the Communist system was its reward. She also spoke to the granting of the period of peace (which sounds a lot like the period of Mercy in Faustina’s Divine Mercy) as the “opportunity” for people to decide for God while they still had the freedom to do so. But that time won’t last forever. All of that emphasis of Fatima had mostly to do with the past century. While this period of Mercy continues, it is expected to run into the period of Justice/purification (already beginning) which has more to do with other messages/apparitions for these times that seem to be continuations of Fatima. Everything is linked. Even JPII spoke to entering into a time like no other where good and evil were meeting in a final confrontation. Pope Benedict spoke to his own need for prayer and support so as not to flee before a coming persecution. These are good and great popes – not “weak” as mentioned above. So just the seedlings of the New Era have been planted – those new grassroots religious movements so supported by JPII and all the Marian prayer groups all over the world, working to fulfill the pleas of Our Lady. We can also see these beginnings in the new crop of seminarians and sisters. It’s always been a faithful remnant that has begun new life in our history.

    To understand the coming era (new springtime) which will be preceeded by a purification (already begun in the Church first), living in the Divine Will (Luisa Piccaretta) and fulfilling the Our Father prayer (Thy Kingdom come Thy Will be done ON EARTH AS IT IS IN HEAVEN) two very good books are:

    “The Splendor of Creation” – The Triumph of the Divine Will on Earth and the Era of Peace in the Writings of the Church Fathers, Doctors and Mystics by Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi – Theologian of Eschatology

    And his “The Triumph of God’s Kingdom In the Millennium and End Times”

    These speak to the “1000” years when Satan will be chained during this New Era. We are now experiencing the end of an era and the birth pangs which will have to come to pass for the next to enter in. These can be greater or lesser according to our own obedience to what heaven has been sending us all throughout the past century in God’s mother. Sad to say, there is more weeping spoken of now than ever before. Crunch time for deciding for good and against evil seems to be here – and it won’t be easy for most.

  53. Jordan Potter says:

    Michael said: To everyone here that is calumniating and ridiculing Fr. Gruner

    You mean “Nicholas Gruner,” not “Father” Gruner. He is suspended a divinis and is not authorised to present himself as a priest, though he continues to do so.

    Chris K said: The “supporters” – those following the usual steps established for belief in apparitions by the Church

    Supporters of various apparitions may or may not follow the usual steps established by the Church. Sometimes they do, many times they don’t.

    do not have to wait for some personally announced blessing by the Vatican. It IS the local bishop’s pronouncements that give guidance to believers re: the fact that nothing goes against Church teachings. No one is forced to believe in private revelations. It is rare that the Vatican would step in against the local bishop’s authority on this unless it sees some kind of non-objective judgment.

    Yes, I’m well aware of all of that. And yet the fact remains that just because the local bishop believes an alleged apparition is authentic, that doesn’t mean the Church has approved the apparition, nor does it mean the apparition is authentic.

    You seem to be placing some unreachable and therefore some kind of guilt producing standard for those who simply follow Church guidelines.

    Not at all. I simply note that, while the local bishop is stated to have approved the alleged apparition in Akita, those who claim the Holy See has given its approval (which seems to be quite a lot of the proponents of Akita) are apparently mistaken, and the Church has not given Akita “approval” — certainly not the kind of approval given to Lourdes and Fatima.

    As the most trustworthy Marian library stated – Akita is included in those rarely stated “supernatural” evidenced places by the Church. You can’t be holier than the Church!

    The diocese in which Akita took place is not “the Church,” just one part of it.

    Notice that “bishop pronouncement” and “church” are used together when speaking of private revelation/apparition judgment. So speaking of Church approval as something different from the local bishop’s statement can be misleading.

    Just as speaking of Church approval as the same as the local bishop’s statement also can be misleading . . .

    Well, as you can see, it is not what I “personally believe”, but rather what the Church has judged and that apparently is what this particular site often dismisses in favor of other opinions they put forth, citing random authors, etc. I have had email discussions with those connected to theotokos re: statements from hierarchical reps of those appointed secretariats that they refuse to accept because of their own particular acceptance of other opinions.

    I wouldn’t know anything about that. But if you have evidence that theotokos is wrong in reporting that the local bishop tells people that the Holy See has never given Akita any sort of approval, please produce it.

    Jordon (sic) Potter, re: Our Lady of All Nations of Amsterdam, it has not been condemned by the Vatican.

    Yes, it has been judged to be inauthentic, and that judgment was confirmed by the Holy See more than once

    http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=3962

    Not that anyone who reads the alleged prophecies and predictions of the so-called Lady of All Nations should need the Vatican to be able to tell that it’s all bunk. The “Lady” made several predictions, none of which came true, most damningly a prediction that Pope Pius XII would dogmatically define Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate, something that he never did. Then the “Lady” changed her story and said it was Pius XII’s successor who would define the dogma, but Blessed John XXIII didn’t either. The proponents of these fake apparitions even produced a prediction of the date of Pope Pius XII’s death — conveniently enough, the “prediction” appeared only after the fact, so technically it’s a “postdiction.” These messages also have Mary, or someone who says she used to be Mary, demanding a dogmatic definition. Then there is the problematic words “who once was Mary,” implying that Mary isn’t herself anymore, but has become someone else.

    Small wonder that the Church has never granted those alleged apparitions any approval. And even Bishop Bomers and Bishop Punt, though they had no business even partially rehabilitating the Lady of All Nations, were careful not to give it a blanket approval. So now there is promotion of devotion to “the Lady of All Nations,” but apparently without directly supporting the inauthentic prophecies and apparitions from which the Lady of All Nations devotion originated. And thankfully the CDF has called on him to remove the troubling words “who once was Mary” from the prayer cards that bear the local bishop’s imprimatur.

    Of course, in principle there’s nothing wrong with “Our Lady of All Nations” as a Marian title. But the Lady of All Nations apparitions are obviously spurious — that’s evident to anyone who reads them and pays attention to the false predictions. I doubt there was anything supernatural about these alleged apparitions, though if there was, the many false predictions do not suggest the good kind of supernatural involvement.

    As for your claim that the Holy See did not repeatedly affirm the negative judgment against the Amsterdam “apparitions,” you’ll need to find something more convincing than assertions from a website that exists to promote Ida Peerdeman’s alleged messages. It’s clear that the judgment on Amsterdam was always negative, that there was never any sort of approval, until a few years ago when the local bishop made a reversal, ignoring what the CDF had previously said. It is unclear how a local bishop’s ruling can overturn a CDF statement, though.

    Perhaps you are confusing them with another group using the name which recently has been in the news and which HAS been condemned.

    No, I’m not confusing them with the Army of Mary.

    In fact the approved Akita apparitions/messages are closely tied to Amsterdam and use the same image of Our Lady that they adopted from Our Lady of All Nations.

    Ah, even more reason to be skeptical of the alleged apparitions and messages of Akita. . . .

    The article at catholicculture.org that I linked above also has some interesting comments about the alleged apparitions at Akita.

    Getting back to Fatima and the allegation that the Church has not yet released all of the Third Secret, well, I’ll believe it when I see it. I believe Fatima is an authentic apparition, but that doesn’t mean I think anyone’s salvation depends on knowing and believing that the apparitions at Fatima are authentic. So, if for some weird reason the Church has suppressed, or misplaced, part of the Third Secret, it’s not that big a deal, and folks like Socci need to take a pill.

    And with that, my contributions to this discussion are at an end.

  54. LCB says:

    So much fighting over things not neccessary for salvation and that in no way impact the Deposit of Faith. Take a deep breath and remember these three things:

    1) The gates of hell will never prevail against the Church.
    2) Peter and those who now occup his See run the Church, not Mary. That may sound harsh, but it’s true. I love Mary more than I love St. Peter or B16, but she is not the Vicar of Christ.
    3) These are all dealing with private revelation.

    If it is causing you any sort of division, consternation, or uncharity, it’s time to burn all your books related to the topic, give away anything blessed, and unplug the internet. The message of Fatima is for prayer, etc. Each minute you argue about it you aren’t praying.

    Daily Eucharist, weekly Confession, lots of rosaries, lots of charity, deep love of others, unlimited forgiveness. All things more important than private revelation.

  55. Malta says:

    I used to believe in multifarious alleged “apparitions” of Our Lady.

    I now realize that the Devil loves to dupe Our Lady; ridicule her, and pretend to be her to subvert her.

    I won’t give examples here, but I’m sure many are famous; perhaps even internationally so.

    The fake apparitions subvert the true ones, and that is in-line with the notion that satan acts as the angel of light he once was.

    Of course most today shun such notions as “satan”, or even, sadly, God.

    But look at yourself: you are alive! Move your fingers and toes; breath air; take a sip of wine. We are wonderfully created! Praise be to God!

    But we also live in a world filled with fast evil. We live in a hyper-sexualized world. We live in a world where many, many souls are addicted to pain-pills (legal and illegal) and alcohol. I’ve heard there are many priests dedicated more to illegal drugs than they are to the souls in their parishes.

    We need to pray for priests and bishops like never before.

    I do believe the Catholic Church is experiencing a chastisement-cleansing like never before (as the world itself is, or soon will be), but it is Christ’s Church. What is the alternative? The episcopal/anglican church, or the 17,000 protestant sects out there? No, no. The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church; notwithstanding the general apostacy we are going through….

    Fatima and Akita (by the example of the nuns who are their advocates) say just this: Christ is in control; He sent His mother as an ambasador of His love, and He is waiting for us–those of us faithful to Him.

    When we die, we will know Christ as He truly is; this life is a vale of tears, and a vale of separaiton from God

  56. Christopher Sarsfield says:

    Dear LCB,

    These things are not necessary for salvation, but they affect the salvation of millions. This is why we argue about things like how the liturgy should be celebrated, private devotions, how to evangelize, etc. These things are not part of the deposit of Faith, but mistakes in these areas can cause a great deal of harm. Now from time to time when the Church is going through an especially bad time, our Lady appears and gives the Church a little advice. Now you are right, our Lady does not do this in order to set up a competing authority with the Pope, however it would seem that if God sends our Lady to tell the Church something, the Church including the Pope would do well to listen. Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. She did not demand it, and God will not punish the Church for not doing it. However, the Church will not receive the graces and promises associated with the act. Now it seems the Church is in pretty bad shape. True the gates of hell will never prevail, but that does not mean the Church could not be doing better. Yes pray. Pray hard for the Holy Father, but what is wrong with praying that he will completely fulfil our Lady’s requests at Fatima, so we can obtain the promise of the time of peace. Again, I am not for harassing and demanding these things from the Holy Father, but I see nothing wrong with spreading the whole message of Fatima, and asking people to pray and sacrifice for it’s fulfilment.

  57. Bernard says:

    In a sense, the hierarchy can truthfully state that ‘everything
    has been published’ begining in the 1930s when Cardinal
    Pacelli (future Pius XII) wrote to Count Galeazzi;

    “Suppose, dear friend, that Communism was only the most
    visible of the instruments of subversion to be used against
    the Church and the traditions of Divine Revelation… I am
    worried by the Blessed Virgin’s message to Lucia of Fatima.
    This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the
    Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering
    the Faith, in Her liturgy…A day will come when the civilised
    world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter
    doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become
    God…In our churches, Christians will search in vain for
    the red lamp where God awaits them, like Mary Magdalene
    weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask,’Where have
    they taken Him?”

  58. LCB says:

    Chris,

    I agree wholeheartedly. These things to impact the salvation of millions, and are worth debating. Perhaps I was unclear in what I wrote. Argument is different from debate.

    When these things begin to cause division, especially for those who promote them over and above the authority of the Church, it is time to back off from such things for the individual experiencing the division.

    For example, the Army of Mary people. When it gets to the point where the Church excommunicates you, it’s time to let it all go and trust in the Church. When it gets to the point where someone calls the Pope a liar, or declares that we have no Pope, or demands something be placed above the authority of the Church, it’s time to let it all go.

  59. MJ says:

    Sometimes these debates devolve into hilarity.

    Someone said above that it was “not possible” that Cardinal Bertone could lie. While I am not charging the cardinal with lying, the statement as it stands is ridiculous.

    Consider that Cardinal Bertone had 3 meetings lasting 10 hours with Sr. Lucia AFTER the 3rd secret was “revealed.” His Eminence himself admits IN HIS BOOK that at one point in the conversation, Sr. Lucia became upset and said “I’m not confessing!” As Socci notes, Cardinal Bertone then said that he “forgot” what prompted that reply. Fascinating.

    In addition to what Brian Mershon said, let us note some facts:

    1. Russia has not converted. The Blessed Virgin said Russia would convert if it were consecrated. Hence, Russia was not consecrated.

    2. Sister Lucia DENIED the efficacy of the 1984 consecrations FIVE TIMES between 1984 and 1989, including a 1985 Sol de Fatima magazine interview. Then, all of a sudden, in 1989 a typed letter from Sr. Lucia appears saying all is well. This despite the fact that Cardinal Bertone denied that Sr. Lucia ever used a computer.

    3. Consider that Sr. Lucia was a holy Carmelite nun and that, given 10 hours of “chats” with Vatican officials like Cardinal Bertone, in which apparently some sort of threat was made regarding absolution and Confession (that quote above comes straight from the cardinal’s book), it is easy to see why the comments would suddenly change.

    4. In a 1984 interview with Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about the 3rd secret as involving “the dangers threatening the life and faith of the Christian, and therefore the world.” Notice that the official version has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with “dangers” affecting Christian Faith: http://www.cfnews.org/Socci-FourthSecret.htm

    5. Ali Agca’s shooting, a lone gunman in St. Peter’s, also has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the 3rd secret’s “bishop in white” being mowed down by a series of bullets together with martyred priests and nuns, unless someone is aware of a series of martyrdoms which occurred on May 13, 1981 outside the Vatican.

    6. The Vatican does not hide secrets for 40 years whose content involves a long gunman shooting (and not killing) the pope. It would be ridiculous to do such a thing, and even secular media noted as much.

    7. It is unlikely that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God would come from Heaven in 1917, perform an astounding miracle witness by 70,000 people, and reveal a great secret hidden for 83 years whose lone message was that…a pope would be shot by a lone gunmen in St. Peter’s in 1981.

    8. As numerous people have pointed out, Vatican officials evidently think that the missing portion about Portugal and the dogma of the Faith represents, not the Blessed Virgin’s words, but Sr. Lucia’s own fantasies. Read Socci and Paolini on this. There would therefore be no lie to say “The third secret has been fully revealed” with such an attitude. In a press conference, Cardinal Bertone also said that the “In Portugal” portion of the secret refers to the 2nd, not 3rd secret. Once again, with that attitude, it is quite possible to say truthfully “The 3rd secret is fully revealed.”

    9. To those who think that the fuss over the 3rd secret is useless; if there is such a secret and it does indeed speak of the catastrophic crisis in the Church over the last 40 years, and if you think it isn’t important to know about that, there’s a bridge in New York I’d like to sell you.

    Read Socci’s book, get a copy, abandon the logical fallacies, and put the evidence together. The “The Vatican says it’s all revealed, therefore, it is all revealed” is sadly a non sequitur in non-infallible matters where the contrary of that proposition is empirically verifiable.

    There are so many holes in the “official” version that, were that version a dam, the town it overlooked would long ago have been inundated with a tidal wave.

  60. MJ says:

    The arguments against a 4th secret seem to take 2 forms:

    1. It is absolutely impossible that the Vatican could ever, under any circumstances, EVER conceal anything from the Catholic faithful (even though they did so for 40 years vis the Secret). To claim that they have done so is to malign the character of the pope or his cardinals (although people do so all the time for cardinals like Cardinal Kaspar or Cardinal Mahony).

    2. The 3rd Secret really isn’t important anyway and so it is not necessary to know what it says.

    #1 is farcically stupid. #2 begs the question; Why did the Blessed Virgin come to Fatima to begin with? Many, many saints and popes have already taught the necessity of the Rosary, penance, and conversion. Why seal off Sr. Lucia’s cell after her death? Why send Cardinal Bertone for 10 hours of talks, some of which were heated enough to move Sr. Lucia to upset?

    The Faith and reason are supposed to work together. We are not supposed to suspend the latter and elevate fallible pronouncements to the status of the former.

  61. LCB says:

    Using a little logic–

    If the third secret had been revealed in other apparitions, then why hide the third secret (or for that matter, NOT hide the others).

    It would then logically follow that there is something contained in the third secret profoundly different (or more detailed, perhaps?) than what folks suspect.

    I don’t follow this stuff too closely, but if Ratzinger/B16, Bertone, JP2, Paul VI, and John XXIII all felt it appropriate not to reveal this secret… maybe there’s a reason?

  62. Malta says:

    lcb

    excellent point! all of these hierarchs hiding something meant to be revealed 48 years ago, and then coming out with a message of a man in white shot and and an angel with a sward. I’m sure that is part of it, but why the subterfuge?

    Of course, and here’s the deal, the hierarchy in Rome is not stupid. This institution, founded by Christ Himself 2,000 years ago, didn’t survive merely by playing mind games. There is no sinister intention by all of these folks. Whether they think the message posted without the supposed “commentary” was sufficient is the case; or, if there is more to it than that, doesn’t matter. The Catholic hierarchy really is out for the salvation of our souls. We can certainly second guess some decisions, such as Paul VI reforming over night a venerable liturgical tradition into a novel protestantesque, banal, commissioned liturgy. However, we cannot question that the Church is necessary for our salvation. Otherwise, we might as well espouse one of the 17,000 protestant sects out there. And that is a scary proposition.

    Telling is the fact that Our Lady wanted the secret revealed in 1960, and Bl. Pope John XXIII said, “this is not for our time.” Maybe it was especially for his time, but didn’t comport with his vision; ahhh, there is the crux of the matter!

  63. Bernard says:

    I think by now we ‘know’ that if there is a hidden part
    of the Third Secret then whatever else it may refer to,
    at heart it concerns the Second Vatican Council. Its a
    warning against the liturgical madness of the past 40 years.
    I really don’t think anyone would go into shock if this
    were published. So maybe theres more. We know that the
    overall secret is political, Russia the 1917 Revolution.
    Think about the part we do know and ask yourself WHO are
    the soldiers shooting the Pope, WHY kill him and all those
    other people? Im just thinking out loud here, but maybe
    theres something in the text which the world politicians
    the ‘powers that be’ really dont want made public?

  64. chris K says:

    I think people are focusing on Fatima as if it stands alone rather than is the most fantastic summation – as if a hub to the many past, present and future spokes of prophecies, messages and warnings.

    Since scenarios are being offered I would like to stay with what is known and contend with all of those variations. These messages come with visions. The vision given had to be for the world – all of the Mother’s children – not some pointed effort for Vat II – Vat II was even predicted in the approved messages of Amsterdam, but in the way of showing the intention that heaven had for it. Once again, with man’s free will, much could and did interfere with the ideal of heaven.

    Also, the huge city lain with corpses and martyrs through which the Pope? (at least JPII recognized himself as that figure in white and he popularly has been called the Pope of Fatima – with his bullet in her crown for heaven’s sake) passes through with greater and greater struggle doesn’t point to some one time event but rather a century which was given over to Satan (but with help in the graces through God’s mother’s appearances) as Pope Leo’s vision held. If anyone could represent a person who was witness to this carnage of the century and attacks on the Church, this Pope out of Poland (quite the miracle itself in the history of the Church) who himself was in hiding from the “arrows” aimed at the Church while being formed himself to lead it, suffering from the “arrows” of Satan’s Communistic tool, to being run down with the head injury that most likely was the cause of his later Parkinson’s disease until he, yes, finally succomed due to all of these “arrows”. He was as well the witness to those martyrs used to bring down the Communist system (esp. in his own land) and he knew of the unseen martyrs of those times. He walked among them.

    Getting back to the visions, the final as well as the previous ones of these apparitions – there are many – but this most frightening one of an angel with arm raised holding a sword of fire ready to show God’s justice was held back, again, through the Mother’s pleas for help. I mean, if you can’t see the intended meaning of that in its very symbol what more words of interpretation could satisfy?? And then, that miracle of the sun – not simply happening to satisfy the hunger of the curious, but its very frightening energy forcing people to believe the end was here. It was a warning of itself. And just how has man himself harnessed that energy and now, with his free will, can decide to use it to destroy the world??? We now see from holy places all over the world, the “miracle” of the sun – showing us another symbol of hope and its true value of giving life with the appearance of the host/Eucharist in its very center. The Eucharist is our very life, just as the sun is our source of earthly human life. The Age to come, with Satan himself harnessed for a time, is said to be a Eucharistic Age of God’s Will.

    So, again, expressing visions/prophecies from saints/mystics/seers from the distant past as well as present, Fatima, coming at the beginning of the horrible century of so much suffering which it was attempting to help with its warnings – one horrible war ending, another one predicted IF…, has shown us what not making reparation can lead to. Those warnings still stand with newer visions for now carrying them onward, Akita being one of them as well as Kibeho. An even greater need for reconciliation/reparation remains – why JPII said that Fatima’s warnings, at least, continue into this century. Our present pope himself has asked to be able not to flee the test. Could he be the Pope forced to flee Rome or even killed, causing great confusion for the Church?? Or during such a time of chaos have another false pope elected by those anti the True Christ and working for some New World?? The only thing left to defend humanity from its greater demise is Christ’s Body on earth – and its truths also were spoken to by Fatima – that those very dogmas would diminish in so much of the Faith. And Russia?? She too is STILL predicted in apparitions of these times to eventually become the holiest example for the world. It isn’t over yet for the literalists! It’s moving on in this new century…as should we.

  65. RBrown says:

    MJ,

    1. Russia has not converted. The Blessed Virgin said Russia would convert if it were consecrated. Hence, Russia was not consecrated.

    But she didn’t say that it would be converted immediately.`

    4. In a 1984 interview with Vittorio Messori, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke about the 3rd secret as involving “the dangers threatening the life and faith of the Christian, and therefore the world.” Notice that the official version has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with “dangers” affecting Christian Faith:

    Disagree. The substance of what has been released is a vision, which, like other mystical matter, employs symbolism, e.g., allegory. Because symbolism permits a variety of interpretations (1) of the ruins in the vision, they can refer to “dangers threatening the life and faith of the Christian”.

    (1) Cardinal Ratzinger wrote that his is an attempt at an interpretation (Un tentativo di interpretazione).

    5. Ali Agca’s shooting, a lone gunman in St. Peter’s, also has NOTHING AT ALL TO DO with the 3rd secret’s “bishop in white” being mowed down by a series of bullets together with martyred priests and nuns, unless someone is aware of a series of martyrdoms which occurred on May 13, 1981 outside the Vatican.

    See above: Symbolic representation. Also my prior comments re conditional prediction.

    7. It is unlikely that the Blessed Virgin Mother of God would come from Heaven in 1917, perform an astounding miracle witness by 70,000 people, and reveal a great secret hidden for 83 years whose lone message was that…a pope would be shot by a lone gunmen in St. Peter’s in 1981.
    Comment by MJ

    I had the same reaction to the Vatican release of the Third Secret. After I had read it, I thought, “So what? If this is it, why didn’t they release it some time ago?” One possible answer is that the hierarchy is probably overly concerned about anything that can alarm the laity.

    IMHO, there has been too little emphasis on Islamic aspect. Not only was Fatima the daughter of Muhammad, but the town seems to have been named after a Moorish princess who converted to Catholicism.

  66. Bernard says:

    Chris K
    Im not an uncritical believer in Fatima, having researched
    as much as I can on the subject. However there is something
    singular about it perhaps because of its overtly political
    context. I dont think Our Lady would bring so much attention
    to a vision and leave us guessing as to what it means.
    There probably is a text, clear and to the point, but having
    something which would threaten the political status quo.
    If the Vatican officials have the slightest doubt that this
    is from Heaven then they wont publish it. Thats the only
    sense I can make of this situation.

  67. Rose says:

    If the whole argument of an unrevealed secret hinges on the different interpretations that Cardinal Ratzinger had from 1984 to 2000, is it possible (just my opinion) that in the 80s, Cardinal Ratzinger had a different personal interpretation of the third secret (I think he said it could be interpreted in a variety of ways, very broadly, to refer to any Pope in the future, may also refer to more than one Pope, to perseccution of the Church in the future, etc.) but after Cardinal Bertone visited Sr. Lucia and Sr. Lucia confirmed that the third secret referred to the assassination attempt on JPII’s life (which JPII himself believed) the official Vatican interpretation became what it was, with Cardinal Ratzinger’s “endorsement” (I sincerely apologize if I am not using the right terms or if it is out of line to speculate like this-delete if you think so, Father.)

  68. Martha says:

    While reading the following quotes from Pope Paul VI, keep in mind the warning of the 3rd secret which Our Lady had asked to be published by 1960; and that she came to avert the spiritual disaster about which the Holy Father speaks:

    April 25, 1968: “But the Church has suffered and suffers still from a whirlwind of ideas and of facts which are certainly not inspired by the good spirit, and do not announce this renewal of life which the Council promised and promoted.”

    December 7, 1968: “The Church finds itself in a period of uneasiness, autocriticism, we would say even of autodestruction.”

    Dec. 3, 1969: “A sentiment of confusion seems to be spreading among the children of the Church, even among the best ones, and sometimes also with the most qualified, those who exercise the greatest authority.”

    June 29, 1971: “We are at a moment of crisis of the faith, a crisis which has repercussions indeed on other domains, on our whole religious , moral and social life.”

    June 29, 1972: “Through some crack the smoke of satan has entered into the temple of God: …we have found new storms. We seek to dig new abysses in place of filling them up.”

    Notice that the Holy Father does place blame on “those who exercise the greatestest authority”?

    And with regard to that, this is what Sr. Lucia said: “Unfortunately, in religious matters, the people, for the most part, are ignorant and allow themselves to be swept away wherever their leaders direct them. Hence the great responsibility of those who have the obligation of leading them..”

    Finally, here is a quote from the official archivist of Fatima, Father Alonso (1982): “An ill-timed revelation of the text would have only exasperated further the two trends which continue to tear the Church: a traditionalism which would be thought to be helped by the prophecies of Fatima and a progressivism which would have howled against these apparitions, which, in such a scandalous manner, would have seemed to put the brakes on the march forward of the conciliar Church..”

  69. chris K says:

    Possibly and rather logically as well, the Vatican prudently did not want to reveal visions of a sword of fire being held over the world and the image of a pope being successfully defeated (as some might have interpreted it) at the time of the Cold War. This could have been a self fulfilling prophecy in those days of talk of “burying” free nations. The Communist system had not as yet been brought down before the world’s eyes. Many have the impression that John XXIII sort of just dismissed the secret…when, as he too was a bit of a mystic as JPII, he truly felt or knew that these visions were meant for some future time, not his. Yes, the wars had come to pass, but not the other implications of something still looming over the whole earth. The Fatima messages focus a lot on sin/reparation/punishment for sin – from the horror of the vision of hell to the plea for constant prayer/rosary for poor sinners before it’s too late (falling like snowflakes). And the ultimate punishment for an entire world engulfed in sin was shown with persecution against a Church heroically still attempting to climb up the hill to the cross while being bombarded from all sides and the threat of Divine punishment depending upon our reparation. This ties in as well with Don Bosco’s vision of the ship of Church being bombarded while the Pope struggles to keep it uprighted and tied to the two pillars of the Eucharist and the Blessed Virgin – again, JPII’s struggle. I don’t think all of that – being visions for an entire world of Her children – can be pin pointed to some inner Church war between progressives and traditionalists…unless that expresses some greater universal conflict between good and evil.

    The solution for all of this as well – Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – was the main reason for not taking Sr. Lucia Home with her cousins. She was to stay to promote this only refuge for our times – for protection during the persecutions and purifications. There was also, remember, the later vision of the Holy Family for its own emphasis.

    If there was a “political” reason (I would say, prudent) for not revealing a falling pope and a sword of fire over the world it was due to not knowing its exact when or where after 2 already devestating wars – that if anything, it was seen to be still in the future of this continuing century of Satan’s.

    Again, BTW, Sr. Lucy said it was not Mary who gave 1960 as some kind of demand for revelation of these visions, but the sense Sr. Lucy had herself…unless someone wishes to say that Sr. Lucy was also playing some dishonest game when she was always in strict obedience.

  70. John/Australia says:

    Earlier comment by LCB
    Quote:
    “I don’t follow this stuff too closely, but if Ratzinger/B16, Bertone, JP2, Paul VI, and John XXIII all felt it appropriate not to reveal this secret… maybe there’s a reason?” End of quote.

    Perhaps the conversion of Russia is to occur by a different means ; “will Russia be converted?”…. “She will be converted also, and then everyone will love Our Hearts”
    (1963 locution)).

    Pax.

  71. Martha says:

    “Again, BTW, Sr. Lucy said it was not Mary who gave 1960 as some kind of demand for revelation of these visions, but the sense Sr. Lucy had herself…unless someone wishes to say that Sr. Lucy was also playing some dishonest game when she was always in strict obedience.”

    This is not true, Chris K. It was Our Lady who requested the timing of the revelation of the secret. It was not Sr. Lucia’s idea. If necessary, I can post the info. Otherwise anyone who is interested, can find the info for themselves. I repeat: It was Our Lady who who made the request to reveal the secret by 1960 at the latest.

  72. chris K says:

    Martha,

    I’m always open to correction. Perhaps our sources are very different, but from what I’ve repeatedly read as the answer given by Sr. Lucia shows her own intuition involved as to the times when her vision would have greater meaning. Besides, one of the red flags for judging private revelation is that of fixed dates given by Jesus/Mary/whomever. Since mostly private revelation is to help us to change things with advice and warnings, etc., they always hold the hope of mitigating what could be on the horizon.

    http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/fatima626.htm

    http://www.catholicherald.com/cns/cns05/lucia-update.htm

    Now, if there are reports of Lucy stating that it was Mary who expressed the exact order to positively reveal the secret at the year 1960 I’d be very open to seeing them.

  73. Martha says:

    To Chris K:

    Chris, I am extremely busy helping with preparations for our first Tridentine Masss in nearly forty years. Thus, I only have time to give you this short excerpt from the scrupulously documented writings of Frere Francois: “During his conversation with Sister Lucy on October 17, and 18, 1946, Canon Barthas questioned her on the Third Secret. Here is the account which he published in 1952: ‘When will the third element of the Secret be revealed to us?’ Already in 1946, to this question Sister Lucy and the Bishop of Leiria answered me uniformly, without hesitation and without comment: “In 1960″ And when I pushed my audacity so far as to ask why must we wait until then, I got the same answer from both the Bishop and Sister Lucy: ‘Because the Most Holy Virgin wishes it so.'”

    There is no doubt in my mind that it was Our Lady’s desire that the secret be revealed by 1960. I have read EXTENSIVELY on this subject and have volumes on Fatima.

    In case you don’t recognize the name, Barthas, Fuentes, Alonso, these priests had privileged access to Sr. Lucia and volumes, many still unpublished were written by them. If some are still unpublished, I would venture to say it is because they would refute the current party line. But there is sufficient information out there to realize that Fr. Gruner is not the crackpot many make him out to be. He is only re-iterating what the great Fatima scholars have already said.

  74. Paul says:

    With respect, I think that those who try to dig too much into the small details of the Blessed Mother’s message at Fatima are missing the point. There is a risk of becoming like Protestants who have all kind of forced readings of the Book of Revelations that–no surprise–fit their own preoccupations. The core message of Fatima is clear, no?: we complacent and licentious moderns must pray more and do more penance–or we shall get worse and worse and merit the wrath of God more and more.

  75. Bernard says:

    Father Joaquin Maria Alonso had been appointed by the
    Bishop of Leiria to prepare the critical and definitive
    study of Fatima and its message.
    In his 1976 book ‘The Secret Of Fatima’ Fr. Alonso writes:
    “If in Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be
    preserved,it can be clearly deduced from this that in other
    parts of the Church these dogmas are going to become obscure
    or even lost altogether. It is quite possible that the
    message not only speaks of a “crisis of faith” in the Church
    during this period (preceding the great triumph of the
    Immaculate Heart of Mary), but also, like the Secret of
    La Salette, that it makes concrete references to internal
    strife among Catholics and to the deficiencies of priests
    and religious. It is also possible that it may imply defifiences
    even among the upper ranks of the hierarchy” (p80)
    “Moreover, how are we to understand Lucia’s great difficulty
    in writing the final part of the Secret when she had already
    written other things that were extremely difficult to put down?
    Had it been merely a matter of prophesying new and severe
    punishments, Sister Lucia would not have experienced difficulties
    so great that a special intervention from Heaven was needed
    to overcome them. But if it were a matter of internal strife
    within the Church and of serious pastoral negligence on the part
    of high-ranking members of the hierarchy, we can understand
    how Lucia experienced a repugnance that was almost impossible
    to overcome by any natural means.” (p82) English Translation
    1979 The Ravengate Press Inc.

  76. Martha says:

    Paul,

    Those guilty of “forced readings” are those who have been restructuring the Fatima message to make it passe’ by twisting and turning and stretching the words of a holy, saintly Carmelite. Unfortunately, they trip all over their own contradictions. According to them the consecration of Russia has been done; the pope who was to be killed, didn’t die,; we are all called to be immaculate conceptions–because that is the crux of the meaning of devotion to the Immaculate Heart–(so they say)… etc., etc.

  77. Bernard says:

    “Serious pastoral negligence on the part of high-ranking
    members of the hierarchy” This from the official historian
    of Fatima (Fr.Alonso CMF) who spent many hours in conversation with Sr.Lucia.
    Add to this the all-important date of 1960 and, well it
    ain’t rocket science.

  78. Paul says:

    I am happy with the “party line,” as far as it goes. Is it all the Blessed Mother and the Holy Spirit intended by Fatima? Probably not, for visions often have multiple levels and layers of meaning. Although I’m no expert in the area, it seems to me likely that the imagery of Fatima is typological, like that of the Book of Revelation–i.e. it refers to many events that are similar in nature, and not just one. Hence John-Paul II’s assassination is a very likely interpretation of the man in white. But surely it means more than that. The late Holy Father was merely appearing as a type for others, as, in some sense, their leader in suffering. We shouldn’t be contemptuous of the official opinion, even if we think there’s more meaning there.

    But if the matter is doubtful or obscure, we should always focus on the basic message, not the particulars.