Benedict XVI says he never told anyone the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima was incomplete

There has been a bit of a dust up in the last days about the Third Secret of Fatima.  Was the whole of the Third Secret truly released?  Some say that it wasn’t.

One blog recently posted some claims about what Joseph Ratzinger told a German professor about the Third Secret.

Now it seems that Benedict XVI has said he never told anyone that the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima in the year 2000 was incomplete, and he confirmed the document was published in its totality.

A Communiqué was published Saturday by the Holy See Press Office on various articles regarding the Third Secret of Fatima:

“Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete,” – the Communiqué reads – “In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares ‘never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima’, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter ‘are pure inventions, absolutely untrue’, and he confirms decisively that ‘the publication of the  Third Secret of Fatima is complete’.”

Take that for what it’s worth.

Some sharing options...

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Benedict XVI, The Drill and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to Benedict XVI says he never told anyone the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima was incomplete

  1. entirelyuseless says:

    Saying that the “publication” is complete is consistent with a mental reservation: the publication is complete because no more will be published, even if there is something else that has not been published.

    Personally I am pretty sure there is something else which unfortunately will never be published. But I agree that Ratzinger definitely did not say the things Dollinger claims he said.

  2. Janol says:

    IIRC (- I try not to get caught up in this) there is the “secret” but also the “interpretation” of the secret given by the BVM at a later time to Sr. Lucia. So if Cardinal Ratzinger/Benedict XVI were to have told someone that “there is something else/more” there is no contradiction when Benedict XVI states that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

  3. padredana says:

    I hope those who were spreading the lies which lead the Pope Emeritus to clarify things will make public retractions.

  4. vandalia says:

    @entirelyuseless It is very dangerous to make arguments based on subtle linguistic issues when you are dealing with one – and likely several – translations. Your observation may in fact be true, however, to make it, you would need the exact words that Pope Benedict actually spoke. In fact that is basically the title and original charism of this website.

  5. Imrahil says:

    While I agree that it’s rather unlikely that Pope emeritus Benedict would have made such an announcement, rather than to the public, to one single professor in a confidential manner, and one who would then have disclosed it…

    for technical precision and no other reason, what we have here is that the Vatican says that Pope Benedict says that he did not say it.

  6. Benedict Joseph says:

    There are other matters for which we hunger to hear Pope Benedict insights. While not wishing to diminish the gravity of the Third Secret of Fatima – the message of Our Lady of Fatima is something I treasure — there are still other serious issues for which we would most grateful to hear Pope Benedict’s comments and clarifications. Surely this is in the awareness of Benedict and his circle, and in the awareness of the inhabitants of the Domus Sanctae Marthae. Just what prioritizes this blip on the screen of contemporary Catholic discussion?

  7. BarefootPilgrim says:

    Is that what BXVI really said, or is it what the Holy See Press Office says he said?

  8. Tricia says:

    I think it’s impossible to know what Pope Benedict did or did not say because it gets filtered through the Press Office, and we all know there are wolves in the Vatican.

  9. BarefootPilgrim says:

    B16 asked us to pray for him (2005), that he wouldn’t flee for fear of the wolves. They seem to have multiplied since then.

  10. RichR says:

    Jesus Christ could appear on the balcony of St. Peter’s and announce the 3rd Secret was fully revealed and you’d still have devoted conspiracy theorists questioning the authenticity of the appearance. Some Catholics love to hold onto the juicy idea of scandal and deception in spite of facts. No authority other than themselves can declare the matter settled.

  11. Eugene says:

    I was hoping the Pope Emeritus would publicly speak on something else like the travesty that is amoris laetitia.

  12. chantgirl says:

    I agree that the whole vision of the third secret was probably published, but I do not think Our Lady’s interpretation of the vision was published, as then Cardinal Ratzinger spoke of trying to separate Lucia’s words from the Virgin’s words. When have we ever heard the Blessed Virgin say “etc.” in a vision?

    Regardless of what interpretation the Blessed Virgin might have given Lucia, it’s pretty apparent that we haven’t done enough praying, fasting, and penance. I also think we haven’t seen this vision completely fulfilled yet as just a smattering of Russia is Catholic and we have not seen any reign of peace.

  13. Supertradmum says:

    I am totally sick of trads harping on this third secret. There are so many more important things and Benedict is to be trusted. I am also tired of those who say the consecration has not happened as it was not done in person by the bishops. There have been other consecrations done in the past through the popes at the time by mail….I think the Sacred Heart one was sent to all the then bishops by mail, and so on…

    If Our Lady wants us to remember what she said at Fatima, she will repeat herself. as she did at Akita, where she also said to pray for rosary in order to avoid calamities.

    Mary and God are not bound by one apparition.

  14. Mike says:

    It is interesting that Benedict is listening. That is good.

  15. Nan says:

    Chantgirl, I don’t know that Russia is required to become Catholic. Orthodoxy wasn’t the error that would be spread, that was communism. If Russia is, in fact, returning to orthodoxy rather than giving it lip service, that should be fine.

  16. albizzi says:

    Antonio Socci demonstrated that the 3rd Secret consists in 2 documents, one of 64 lines on 2 sheets, the second about 25 lines on one sheet.
    We didn’t get the second document.
    Therefore Bénédict is right when he says that the publication of the first one is complete.
    The discrepancy began when the Vatican declined to reveal the 3rd Secret on Feb 8th 1960 through a laconic press release:
    “Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She doesn’t desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the WORDS that the three shepherds children said that the Virgin Mary had a dressed to them”
    Where are the WORDS of the Virgin in the Secret as it was revealed in 2000? It is only a vision described by the children not by our Lady.

  17. Bosco says:

    Dear Father Z.,

    You report :

    “A Communiqué was published Saturday by the Holy See Press Office on various articles regarding the Third Secret of Fatima”… and offer:

    “Take that for what it’s worth.”

    Will do. I have great respect for the Holy See’s Press Office and its slavishly accurate reporting of second-hand information. That settles that.

  18. DJAR says:

    padredana says: I hope those who were spreading the lies which lead the Pope Emeritus to clarify things will make public retractions.

    Father Dollinger has now publicly reiterated that Cardinal Ratzinger did indeed tell him what he initially claimed he said.

  19. Father G says:

    @RichR,

    Agreed.

    These conspiracy theories have become ridiculous, like the one that Sister Lúcia had been replaced by an imposter.

  20. juergensen says:

    I miss him so.

  21. DJAR says:

    Nan says: Chantgirl, I don’t know that Russia is required to become Catholic. Orthodoxy wasn’t the error that would be spread, that was communism. If Russia is, in fact, returning to orthodoxy rather than giving it lip service, that should be fine.

    In 1851, Maximin Giraud, one of the seers of La Salette, wrote down the words he claims the Blessed Virgin told him as a secret. The actual text was found in the Vatican archives over 16 years ago and publicly released along with Melanie Calvat’s text. It can be viewed online.

    His “secret” contains the following words: “Une grande contrée dans le nord de l’Europe, aujourd ‘hui protestante, se convertira: par l’appui de cette contrée toutes les autres contrées du monde se convertiront.”

    My translation: A great country (land) in the north of Europe, today Protestant, will be converted. By the support of this great country (land), all the other countries (lands) of the world will be converted.

    Many saints and mystics down through the ages have stated that the entire world will one day convert to the Catholic Church. Many of them have also stated that this would happen only after a universal chastisement of the human race.

  22. johnthemad says:

    I have no idea whether the entire message of Our Lady at Fatima has been published or not. Nor am I one to spend much time fretting over it. Working in government for many years I can say, however, that the statement of the Vatican Press Office reads like political spin, intended to convey a certain message without explicitly stating the facts by selectively telling the truth.

    The Vatican has a major problem on its hands as many of the faithful do not trust statements emerging from that source. The lack of trust appears to be well earned in this pontificate. It is a self-inflicted wound.

  23. thomas777 says:

    Just for the record there were 2 envelopes given by Lucia. 1 containing 4 pages, hand written. the other containing 1 page perhaps 25 lines of hand written text. The dimensions of that letter were measured through the envelope. One was published completely the other was not.

    Just because they are paranoid does not mean they are wrong. Just because they talk about a conspiracy does not mean it is a theory.
    We require grace for a restoration. God’s plan for the restoration involves the minor chastisement. If you prefer “a great disaster”. They are not wrong to look for it.

    It would have been nice to hear his views on the encyclical however. As we already know everything we need to know about the secret. In fact it would be very anticlimatic at this point. After having lived through the loss of the faith she referred to in so many visitations in so many different places over so many years. Birch, an actual Catholic scholar who wrote Catholicly about it, has the count vaguely at several hundred messages over 1500 year or so.

  24. Kathleen10 says:

    It seems odd he would even go to the trouble to clarify this point.
    Perhaps it was becoming embarrassing to have it said the apostasy goes “to the very top” of the Vatican while we are seeing increasing numbers of Catholics who are publicly considering we have a papacy that has gone off the rails. This seems a big fat lid.

  25. albizzi says:

    In addition to my previous post about the press release of the Vatican on Feb 8th 1960 declining to reveal the content of the 3rd Secret, then it is very inconsistent that the unveiling of the year 2000 was not commented with the same precautions about the “veracity of the words of the Virgin”
    Regarding the “conspiracy theory” who initiated it if not for example the Card. Ottaviani who declared that the Secret is written with 25 lines on a single sheet of paper? (We got 64 lines on 2 sheets).
    Or for example the Card. Ciappi, the personal theologian of John Paul II with that terrible sentence: “In the 3rd Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin AT THE TOP”.
    Or the Cardinal Ratzinger himself: “These two messages of Akita and Fatima are essentially the same” (I recall Akita: “cardinals against cardinals, bishops against bishops…”)

  26. Traductora says:

    This is a carefully parsed statement, and I doubt that BXVI (the new “Prisoner of the Vatican”) said a word of it. Frankly, I don’t think he’s even allowed to know what’s going on.

    I’m not a big Fatima person myself, although I have known several important people who were – including the Jesuit Ft. Karl Patzelt, supposedly the model for the priest in The Exorcist. But what is interesting to me is that the Francis Vatican, which has never responded to anything before, suddenly wants to weigh in on Fatima. Strange, isn’t it?

  27. introibo says:

    Nan, although Orthodoxy can be said to be akin to the Catholic Church, it denies that the Pope of Rome has universal authority. Then there are other problems such as the Filioque issue and the accepting of divorce and remarriage. That there is no salvation outside the Church of Rome is dogma. The Orthodox and all non-Catholics need to be converted to unity with Rome, professing the same, one true faith.

  28. excalibur says:

    There is no doubt that Russia was not consecrated to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, and with the bishops present. Russia still remains mainly atheistic, and the Church is persecuted therein.

    There is no way any sober mind can conclude that all the Fatima happenings were about an assassination attempt on a future Pope. All that, for a failed assassination? All that, for one man?

  29. JabbaPapa says:

    I do wish that these conspiracy theorists would simply wake up and realise what foolishness they are pursuing.

    The so-called “fourth secret” is based on a personal interpretation of the meaning of the Secrets that is entirely consistent with their known contents. And yet, as Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out, quite clearly, in his text accompanying and commenting upon the Secrets on the occasion of the publication of the Third, personal revelations may be understood in a multiplicity of personal ways, but we must always be on the guard against interpretations that contradict Church teaching. If that should happen, the errors and falsehoods are from the person making those interpretations, and NOT from the revelation itself, for it may have been given in a very personal manner not suitable for universal examinations of it by one and all.

    These conspiracy theorists are also accusing several Popes of being direct liars to the Faithful and to the Church, which is IMO a quite horrendously mendacious manner of Calumny and False Witness, and a Mortal Sin, may God have mercy on their souls.

  30. JabbaPapa says:

    Traductora :

    This is a carefully parsed statement, and I doubt that BXVI (the new “Prisoner of the Vatican”) said a word of it. Frankly, I don’t think he’s even allowed to know what’s going on.

    That sounds completely paranoid.

  31. albizzi says:

    Sr Lucia’s phrase saying that “the Consecration (of Russia) has been accepted by Heavens” should not be taken as if she had said “properly done”.
    Of course, has anyone heard of a consecration to the IHM that Heavens would have refused?
    Every consecration , so far as its aim is serious is “accepted by Heavens” and certainly that of Pope JPII in 1984 was accepted and brought some fruits like the fall of the communism, as that of Pope Pius XII (of the world) hastened the end of the WWII.
    We know for sure that Sr Lucia said for years that the Consecration of 1984 wasn’t properly done until she recanted under the pressure of her hierarchy.
    The late Abbé Georges de Nantes asserted that the Bishop of Fatima confided him that he himself conveyed to Sr Lucia the order from Vatican to “shut up”.
    The fall of the communism (in Russia) happened but where is the conversion of that country to the Catholic faith? Where is the “period of peace” our Lady promised?
    Sr Lucia spoke about a “miracle of conversion” for Russia, therefore the renewal of the orthodox faith in this country in no way can be taken as the miracle She promised.

  32. rinkevichjm says:

    The FFA wrote this in a piece about Fr Grunner’s passing belatedly: [I’ll let this stand, but I want everyone to know that I in no way approve of Fr. Gruner, or his writings.]
    About the consecration of Russia, she encountered many difficulties, but was a stickler (like Fr. Gruner, in a way). In October 1942, she told Pius XII it was not done, “because it lacked the union with all of the bishops of the world.” Regarding Pope Paul VI’s consecration on May 13, 1967, “They asked me if it was done as Our Lady requested. I answered no, for the same reason.” In a letter, she writes: “When John Paul II made it on May 13, 1982, they asked me then if it was done. I said no. It lacked the union with all the bishops.” Finally, “this same Supreme Pontiff John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him. . .and on March 25, 1984 – publicly and in union with all the bishops of the world who wished to unite – made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They asked me then if it was made as Our Lady had asked for it, and I said yes. Since then it is done.”
    All in all, Lucia appears in the biography as a humble and nondescript shepherdess, entrusted by the Queen of Heaven with a mission to the world, and secrets, but for the most part dealing with day-to-day crosses, trying to be faithful to her vocation as a religious while escaping the limelight.
    The initial Fatima message in 1917 is still of the utmost importance, and in great need of implementation: “Jesus. . .wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. To those who accept this, I promise them the salvation of their souls and they will be loved by God like flowers placed by me to adorn His throne.” cited at http://www.fatimafamily.org/?id=36&main_page=page#!The-Fatima-Message-A-Final-Chapter/c17jj/5641fab80cf21009be8011f4

  33. Christ_opher says:

    The Virgin Mary gave us all the opportunity to stop the spread of communism through Mass, Confession, Prayer, Penance and Adoration.

    Many like to think that the third secret was not revealed and waste a great deal of time promoting this cause on the internet and sadly slander and defame certain cardinals and bishops based on impressions and feelings.

  34. Andrew D says:

    We’re also told that Russia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Our Lady Herself approved. But, when over 50 percent of Russian pregnancies to this day end in abortion, that’s not a sign that a country was consecrated.

  35. Cornelius says:

    I don’t understand all the focus on the Fatima message. Yes, purportedly the BVM said the apostasy in the Church will start at the very top. But that’s obvious isn’t it? It happening before our eyes. AL seeks to justify/rationalize a permanent state of adultery – if this isn’t the most flagrant rejection of divine truth then I don’t know what is.

  36. EeJay says:

    Why did the Vatican refuse to reveal the 3rd secret back in 1960? After reading the 3rd secret’s text I see no reason why they should have suppressed it. Holding it back just created suspicion among the faithful.

  37. Tricia says:

    After we’ve seen things like a rigged Synod (like books that mysteriously disappeared), terrible translations, and cardinals debating outright heresy, I honestly do think anything is possible. I also think since it’s impossible to know what’s going on over there, all I’m going to do is pray and trust in the Lord’s providence.

  38. xsosdid says:

    http://www.fatimamovement.com/images/img-third-secret-of-fatima/Third-Secret-of-Fatima-large.jpg
    [I’ll let this stand for now, but I want nothing to do with that website.]
    Translation:
    “January 4, 1944:

    Now I will reveal the third part of the secret;
    This part is the apostasy in the Church! (1)
    Our Lady showed us a vision of someone who I describe as the ‘Pope’, standing in front of a praising multitude.
    But there was a difference with a real Pope, the evil
    look, this one had eyes of evil. (2)
    Then after a few moments we saw the same Pope entering
    a church, but this church was like the church of hell, there is no way to describe the ugliness of this place, it seemed like a fortress made of gray cement, with broken angles and windows like eyes, there was a beak on top of the building. (3)
    We then looked up at Our Lady who said to us:
    you have seen the apostasy in the Church, this message can be opened by The Holy Father, but must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960. (4)
    During the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone from Peter’s tomb must be removed and transferred to Fátima.
    Because the Dogma of faith is not preserved in Rome, her
    authority will be removed and given to Portugal. (5)
    The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fátima. (6)
    If 69 weeks after this command is announced Rome continues it’s abomination, the city will be destroyed. (7)
    Our Lady told us this is written, Daniel 9 24-25 and Mathew 21 42-44. (8)”

    69 weeks after the signing of Amoris Laetitia (i.e. the “command”) is the week of July 13th 2017, the 100th anniversary of the giving of the three secrets.

    The church mentioned above is the new basilica of the Holy Trinity in Fatima. JP2 indeed transferred a stone from Peter’s tomb there in the 80’s. It fits the description above to a T.

  39. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Wow, xsosdid, that is one seriously dodgy link, website, and “quote.” Everything’s okay during the rise and fall of the Roman Empire and all the bad stuff since, but now Rome has to move to Portugal? I guess St. Catherine of Siena should have told the Pope to stay in Avignon!

    And yes, of course this is a big deal. This Professor Dollinger isn’t a cardinal or bishop, a public figure who is used to dealing with loonies and casual calumny. He is an academic whose word and reputation are bound up with his work, so his name needs to be cleared so that he is not harassed. Pope Francis and the Pope Emeritus both understand Marian devotion and devotees, so they know this stuff is important around the world. Obviously it won’t stop everything, but hopefully it will help.

  40. kiwiinamerica says:

    Someone is telling lies here. Big, fat porkies!!! (“pork pies”…….lies…..Cockney rhyming slang).

    What the heck is the matter with these people? Do they have no love of the truth? No fear of God?

  41. Suburbanbanshee says:

    Interestingly, the story seems to have come from an article by one Maike Hickson, and was posted over on One Peter Five, among other places. It includes a very wilful misinterpretation of stuff that Pope Benedict said, ignoring his references to other Fatima messages besides the Secret; and of course to the Book of Revelation, which Sr. Lucia said was what all the apparitions relate to. Sigh.

  42. Athelstan says:

    “I hope those who were spreading the lies which lead the Pope Emeritus to clarify things will make public retractions.”

    Do you mean Fr Dollinger?

  43. GrumpyYoungMan says:

    I don’t get why so many people are spun up about this on either “side.” We are talking about private revelation here.

    While deemed worthy of belief, the events and secrets surrounding Fatima aren’t required to be believed by the faithful. Sadly, in some circles this is generating more hubbub than some of the doctrinal messes that Kasper & Co. have stirred up.

  44. Gilbert Fritz says:

    xsosdid,

    Does that website have an imprimatur? Does it have the approval of any Catholic bishop in full union with Rome?

    I’m going to say that just by the sound of it, that “secret” is bunk.

    And, everyone should be very careful of accusing a saint of the Church, (JPII) of a huge and horrendous lie to the church; when he could have easily just kept it under wraps (and thus told no lie.) Remember that the church is infallible, so JPII is a saint.

  45. JabbaPapa says:

    xsosdid has posted a link to an openly Heretical and Blasphemous website which promotes evil teachings, seemingly of a diabolic origin. I hope it will be removed.

  46. Everyone: There is some crazy stuff out there on the interwebs. Some seriously weird stuff is referenced in these comments already. We can here, perhaps, apply a kind of Reverse-Gresham’s Law and sort the dross from the gold.

  47. Stephanus83 says:

    @RichR

    “Jesus Christ could appear on the balcony of St. Peter’s and announce the 3rd Secret was fully revealed and you’d still have devoted conspiracy theorists questioning the authenticity of the appearance. Some Catholics love to hold onto the juicy idea of scandal and deception in spite of facts. No authority other than themselves can declare the matter settled.”

    Spot on! That was worth a gold star for sure.

  48. Uxixu says:

    While I am incredulous about the conspiracy theories, I agree with EeJay in that it doesn’t make any sense for the secret as revealed to have been withheld in 1960, which naturally begets some curiosity… though many take it too far into intemperance, much less scandalous doubts about the Church itself.

  49. Elizabeth D says:

    All the mass agonizing over Fatima (or any other private revelation) plays into the devil’s hand in my opinion. I am hopeful that post-Medjugorje there will be a return to greater caution and the faithful will be less inclined to glom onto other people’s reported prayer experiences as significant “messages from heaven to the world.” This greater caution is more authentically traditional than jumping on every “apparitions” bandwagon that comes along, as per the Doctors of the Church, above all St John of the Cross the Mystical Doctor.

  50. robtbrown says:

    Andrew D says:

    We’re also told that Russia was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Our Lady Herself approved. But, when over 50 percent of Russian pregnancies to this day end in abortion, that’s not a sign that a country was consecrated.

    Who said the conversion would happen immediately after the consecration? I don’t recall any part of the Fatima messages comparing the consecration to a light switch.

  51. xsosdid says:

    My only concern is the source of that photo. It did not originate at that website, about which I know nothing. The photo appeared on the web in 2010 and has shown up on websites all over. I can’t defend how the photo is being used. I used the link because it is a particularly good image…that’s all.

    The photo itself is quite compelling: Sister Lucia had a very distinctive hand, there is a thumbprint, there is some coat of arms, I believe, as a background. Intriguing.

    Then there’s the content itself….
    I meant to get people’s attention. Someone out there knows where this photo comes from and I think it is worth asking.

  52. majuscule says:

    The first impression I had of the photo is that the handwriting is computer generated.

    Although a person’s handwriting can change with time, the handwriting in the images on the Vatican website looks close, but not the same.

    I am, however, no expert!

  53. majuscule says:

    The first impression I had of the photo is that the handwriting is computer generated. Also, the wording doesn’t sound like Sr. Lucia’s. (I can read a little Portuguese.)

    Although a person’s handwriting can change with time, the handwriting in the images on the Vatican website looks similar, but not the same.

    I am, however, no expert!

  54. SimonR says:

    As other people have said, you do not have to be a conspiracy theorist to think this is all very strange. Why would the Holy See Press Office all of a sudden decide it is necessary to issue a press release about Fatima with the reported comments of the Pope Emeritus?

  55. Kathleen10 says:

    There was also recent commentary about the Third Secret by Alice Von Hildebrand. She recently shared that she and her husband Dietrich Von Hildebrand were told by somebody very credible (a Vatican insider, as I recall) that the entire Third Secret had not been revealed. Dr. Von Hildebrand was asked that question and checked with her spiritual director who gave her permission to talk about it, and she acknowledged it was true. So there are other credible voices supporting the missing part of the Third Secret.
    There are people who may not “get” Fatima. Sometimes it’s cooler to be a purist and less interested in something as extraneous as a Marian apparition. But this one is approved by the church, and speaks to direct warnings given to us by Our Lady about our times.
    It is too late for the Vatican on this one. They are not going to be able to suppress this now. The reason they can’t is because what they say and do match every day now perfectly match what the warning was reportedly about.

  56. Father G says:

    @xsosdid,

    Re: “Translation: January 4, 1944”

    There is a discrepancy in the dating on that letter supposedly written by Sister Lucia.

    Europeans generally write dates this way: dd/mm/yyyy.

    In the photocopies of Sister Lucia’s handwritten notes on the Third Secret, she dates January 3, 1944 as “3-1-1944” Therefore, if she did write another letter the next day, then she would have written the date as “4/1/1944” and not “1/4/944” as is on that letter.
    See here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    Therefore, the date on that letter is not January 4, 1944, but April 1, 1944!!!

    And we all know what April 1st is.

    Case closed.

  57. albizzi says:

    There are at least a dozen of statements and testimonies between 1984 ans 1989 about Sister Lucia saying that the 1984 Consecration was not done properly by John Paul II. And how could it be since the Pope didn’t dare to utter the word “Russia” but hid it under a circumlocution ?
    And suddenly in 1989 she seemed to recant (under the pressure of her hierarchy) with that sentence: “The Consecration was accepted by Heavens”.
    Those who conclude from that sentence that the 1984 consecration was made according to our Lady’s wishes are wrong: Had Heavens ever rejected any consecration to the IHM so far as its aim was serious. Of course Pope John Paul II’s Consecration was accepted, it brought some fruits like the fall of the communism (in Russia, but not everywhere) but in no way did it bring the conversion of the orthodox people to the catholic Faith (about which Sr Lucia spoke of a “miracle of conversion”) nor the “period of peace” our Lady promised. On the contrary, the world is at war in many regions and the Church is in a very bad situation while the apostasy of many christian countries is obvious.
    Therefore the Consecration of Russia still is to be done.

  58. Gilbert Fritz says:

    I’m also wondering: who ever said that Russia would be converted, and the world know peace, AT ONCE? Just as soon as the consecration was done?

    A thousand years are as a day to God. Prayers are not magic. Russia (and the world) will not be converted until enough Russians (and inhabitants of the globe) reform their lives.

    I remember arguing with a traditionalist who was quite sure that the day after a Truly Valid Consecration, all world leaders would get such a Huge Amount of Intense Grace that they would Immediately Convert.

    I don’t think that Our Lady said anything remotely like that.

  59. xsosdid says:

    @ Fr G,
    With all due respect, Father, the date on the document is actually 1/4/944. It’s some sort of typo…code for a hoax..?I don’t know, that’s a stretch. You would think that the hoaxer would get that right given the effort to do the rest.

    I appreciate the input, though.

  60. HeatherPA says:

    How interesting that a blog writes something and gives quotes attributed to dear Pope Benedict XVI and within a few days it is addressed strongly and decisively.

    If only there was such clarity and immediate action when there is a fog of confusion and mis “quoting” or mistranslation regarding anything else of the Vatican and Pope Francis.

    This being immediately addressed just makes all the other things that hang in the air unaddressed that more frustrating.

    Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us.

  61. Father G says:

    @xsosdid,

    I was aware of the date on the letter. (Please re-read my previous post.)
    The point is that this letter is a hoax and unfortunately there are those who will be duped into accepting it as true.

  62. xsosdid says:

    @ Father G

    Well forgive me Father. I don’t know you and you may be a good man, but if that’s a hoax then isn’t it ironic how roundly the hoaxer has hit the nail on the head?

  63. mibethda says:

    Kathleen10,
    Since Dietrich von Hildebrand died in 1977 and the reveal of the Third Secret did not occur until 2000 – nearly a quarter of a century later – it would be most remarkable if he as well as Alice von Hildebrand were both told by the unnamed source that the 2000 reveal was not complete.

  64. Father G says:

    @xsosdid,

    There are other problems with this “Third Secret”. For example, it states:

    “We then looked up at Our Lady who said to us:
    you have seen the apostasy in the Church, this message can be opened by The Holy Father, but must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.”

    That contradicts what Sister Lucia said to Cardinal Bertrone:

    “Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the “secret” to the then Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria. Archbishop Bertone therefore asked: “Why only after 1960? Was it Our Lady who fixed that date?” Sister Lucia 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. Now it can be better understood. I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.”

  65. Father G says:

    (Accidentally pressed post button before finishing.)

    Here is the link: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

    So, we have a contradiction:
    – Our Lady states that the secret should be revealed before 1960.
    – Sister Lucia chose the date based on intuition to be revealed after 1960.

    Both can’t be true.

  66. JabbaPapa says:

    Father G :

    So, we have a contradiction:
    – Our Lady states that the secret should be revealed before 1960.
    – Sister Lucia chose the date based on intuition to be revealed after 1960.

    Both can’t be true.

    Lucia continued to receive private revelations throughout her life, and it’s possible that she received some later instructions that were amended from the fact that the Consecration of Russia had only taken place imperfectly, which may have changed the conditions of the revelation from their original state in relation to the Warning.

    It is also possible that as a child, Lucia simply made a mistake in her own initial interpretation of the Virgin’s request, as she seems to have suggested herself.

    I’d actually also recommend re-reading the Book of Jonah in the Scripture, which is a good illustration of the confusion that can arise in us when God may change His Mind, and a Warning or a revelation or a Prophecy is contradicted by His responses to our variable reactions to such Messages.

    These considerations all illustrate why personal revelations should be interpreted only with a great deal of care, humility, and circumspection, instead of expecting them to be in conformity with our own preconceptions or doubts. Indeed, if such revelations never contradicted us in our understandings, there would be no purpose to them at all, for any true revelations are always calling us to a conversion of our minds and souls towards God and the Universal Revelation.

  67. Suburbanbanshee says:

    1. If there were ever “two envelopes” (and I haven’t seen any real documentation on that), the custom of the time would dictate that one of them must be a cover letter, and the other the actual document. One did not send documents without cover letters that described the document. Often one hears of a “Read this first” sort of cover letter, when it comes to giving context for a document or in legal matters.

    However, while cover letters should always be filed with the document, it is often the case that later persons who are in control of a file will decide that the cover letter belongs with the rest of the correspondence, and that the document should be filed separately. (Alternately, someone may have decided that it was a waste of envelopes to have two of them kicking around, and may have combined them.) If one files a cover letter separately, in a file which is more accessible to other people, it would be possible for a great many people to read the cover letter’s description and context notes. If something like this were to happen in a small place like the Vatican, which one hears is full of chat and rumors, people would probably make guesses and discuss, with the stories getting wilder according to one’s strength of imagination and distance from access to the cover letter. Most of these guesses would be dead wrong.

    2. If someone famous and important hears a rumor from the Vatican, what you should remember is that it still amounts to the same thing as “Bob heard a rumor from Joan about stuff happening with people in her workplace.” True? False? Joan doesn’t know, so Bob doesn’t know.

    3. If you don’t know why the Vatican didn’t release the Secret in 1944 or in 1960, you haven’t read that bit about the ruined city and all the people dying, or the Virgin holding back chastisement which still might come. It’s common for a few people to kill themselves from despair whenever a “doomsday” prophecy circulates, and both in WWII and in the Cold War, there were plenty of despairing, fragile people. What was widely published was already the focus of some people’s unhealthy thoughts, even though most people got nothing but good out of it. Things were a lot brighter and happier when St. Pope John Paul II released the Secret.

    4. Yes, one of the textual problems with Fatima messages is to distinguish between “stuff Mary said,” “stuff the visionaries said or wrote to describe what she showed them,” “stuff the visionaries said or wrote that they felt or intuited or thought at the time,” “stuff the visionaries said or wrote about what Mary said or showed them, after they’d thought about it,” and even “stuff that Lucia thought afterwards that she was supposed to write down in her accounts, even though she didn’t hear or see anything about that at the time from Mary; but which still constitutes prophetic or even visionary content.”

    5. The really important stuff isn’t a Secret, and yet people don’t do it: Say the Rosary every day. Wear the Brown Scapular. Go to Mass on First Saturdays. Make everyday kinds of sacrifices and accept everyday troubles, and offer them up for sinners.

  68. Augustine says:

    Let’s see. Christianity is taught in Russian public schools. The Russian government promotes the family. Homosexually is outlawed in Russia and only women use women’s bathroom. The Russian military combats jihad. Seems pretty converted to me. If only America could say the same.

    I fail to understand the heresy of raising private revelation above the Church in her pope and bishops. I am a devout of the Little Shepherds of Fatima, whose public example of Christian lives is the most precious treasure of Fatima. Indeed, their lives were transformed by the apparitions of Our Lady, but not so much by the secrets as by her words to them and by encountering her. To me, this is the treasure of Fatima, coming to Mary and listening to her words directed at me personally. Anything else is idle speculation.

  69. JabbaPapa says:

    What Suburbanbanshee says — we don’t all of us have a particular charism of prayer, yet the ordinary Sacrifice of Love and Worship in Eucharist is our work

  70. majuscule says:

    Suburbanbanshee’s comment #3 about peoples’ reactions to doomsday prophecies sparked a memory from when I was a child in the 1950s. I had been asking my mom about the Blessed Mother appearing to the children and her message. She told me that the Third Secret had not yet been revealed and it was said that it predicted the end of the world!

    I don’t know how prevalent that thought was at the time… We had duck and cover drills at school and Sister warned us that if the communists took over we were to be like the martyrs and die rather than renounce Christ. People seem disappointed with the Secret as revealed.

    Suburbanbanshee is right. Rosary (with Fatima Prayer), Scapular, First Friday’s, offering up sacrifices…we can all do some of those.

  71. albizzi says:

    One may wonder with suspicion why the monumental work of the official Fatima’s archivist, Fr Joaquin Alonso was forbidden to be printed by the Vatican.
    Father Joaquin Alonso wrote a huge book on the Fatima Message, entitled “Fatima Texts and Critical Studies”. This book, which consists of 24 volumes containing 5,396 documents, was withheld from its publication by the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Msgr. Alberto Cosme do Amaral, at its completion in 1975. Since then, only two of the 24 volumes have been released for publication, and these were heavily edited.
    Before his death in 1981, Father Alonso stated the following important conclusions concerning the Third Secret:
    “It is therefore completely probable that the text makes concrete references to the crisis of faith within the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves [and the] internal struggles in the very bosom of the Church and of grave pastoral negligence by the upper hierarchy.
    In the period preceding the great triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, terrible things are to happen. These form the content of the third part of the Secret. What are they? 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.
    Thus it is quite possible that in this intermediate period which is in question (after 1960 and before the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary), the text makes concrete references to the crisis of the Faith of the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves.”

    If published, the 22 remaining volumes would help a lot to make the Truth on Fatima to manifest itself. Is that Truth so terrible that nobody in the Vatican “doesn’t desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the words that the three shepherds children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them” ?

  72. robtbrown says:

    Traductora says:

    This is a carefully parsed statement, and I doubt that BXVI (the new “Prisoner of the Vatican”) said a word of it. Frankly, I don’t think he’s even allowed to know what’s going on.

    Archbishop Gänswein has kept BXVI up to date about what’s going on.

  73. Pingback: MONDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit

  74. chantgirl says:

    mibethda- Alice von Hildebrand did not comment on the completeness of the third secret as revealed. She commented on content which she and her husband were told was contained in the third secret years before the secret was released by the Vatican.

    http://www.onepeterfive.com/alice-von-hildebrand-sheds-new-light-fatima/

    The content she and her husband were told about would support the theory that the description of the vision but not Our Lady’s explanation were released.

  75. jkking says:

    Regarding Russia: While it’s true that the Orthodox Church is not in communion with Rome, the Catholic Church allows Eastern Orthodox Christians to receive communion in its churches. Also, since the 1960s, the two churches view one another as schismatic, but not heretical (unlike the protestant churches). Correct me if I’m wrong, but based on this strong ecclesial affinity I don’t see any issue with a Russian Orthodox ascendency over Communism being the fruit of the consecration.

  76. Kathleen10 says:

    Thanks Chantgirl. I was trying to recall exactly what Dr. Von Hildebrand said but wasn’t coming up with it.

  77. xsosdid says:

    @ Fr G
    You want to trust the details of this issue to those who defied the will of the Mother of God….I can’t.
    I am thoroughly scandalized by these people. I can count on one hand priests who I trust further than I can throw. The rest strike me as either predatory or self serving.
    If that’s a sin may God forgive me. I’m trying to stay in the state of grace and be an example for those around me. There is no support in my experience for this from priests, bishops and now pope. I’m an island here.(as an aside: I recently confessed my anger at the ambiguities of Amoris L. Do you know what I was told? That “traditionalists” need to get their own house in order before they criticize anyone else, and as an example he mentioned a woman he knows who has children living in sin. This priest told me that unless we have our own houses in order [i.e. I am responsible for the actions of my grown children…], we can’t make an intellectual objection to the hierarchy!)

    Honestly I don’t need this photo to be legitimate, but I am impressed by its frank expression of the reality of the Catholic Church as people like myself experience it. It would be a relief at this point to know that this mess is somehow a part of God’s plan.
    God bless you Father.

  78. IHSV says:

    @xsosdid

    He’s right in more than one sense, we do need to get our own house in order. However, he forgot that the Church is my home too, as a baptized and confirmed Catholic. Hagan lio right?

    Time to get our house in order AMDG.

  79. xsosdid says:

    @ IHSV

    Hagan Lio indeed!

  80. comedyeye says:

    Interesting that the Vatican’s statement didn’t specifically refute the questionable information-
    that “the great apostasy would start at the top”. I believe they choose their words very carefully
    as when they were asked if Pope Francis had performed an exorcism on the man in a wheelchair in 2013. Fr Lombardi replied “the Holy Father did not intend to perform any exorcism”.