I occasionally read books about the so-called “Third Secret” uttered by Our Lady of Fatima.
Lot’s of people believe that the real text of the “Third Secret” has still not been made public despite the hoopla a few years ago in Fatima when the late Pope had then SecState Card. Sodano reveal the text and then PrefCDF Card. Ratzinger published a commentary on it. Books such as that of Fr. Paul Kramer, The Devil’s Final Battle, claim that massive conspiracy has taken place to suppress the BVM’s message which concerns nothing less than the future of the human race.
I just got hold of a new book, in Italian, by Antonio Socci entitled Il Quarto Secreto di Fatima (Rizzoli 2006), or “The Fourth Secret of Fatima. Socci, a journalist, says in his preface (signed 6 October 2006) that as he was digging into the question, his opinion slowly shifted. He thinks there is more to the story. There may be, he opines, more text than what was revealed. This I have heard before, but it will be interesting to find out what he thinks happened.
I will give you some updates as I work through the book (in my copious free time).
More here by Vittorio Messori about the book and the concept of the book.
UPDATE
Click to buy
Loading ...
Thanks, Father. I look forward to your updates. That Mother Angelica said she thinks we haven’t gotten the whole story really struck me.
May I offer this reminder?
As significant as Fatima is, always remember:
1. It remains private revelation; not meaning it is to be disregarded, but rather to recall that
2. Everything we need to know for our salvation has been given to the world via public revelation. Fatima is, at best, a help.
And, by the way, the same God who sent Mary to Fatima can send her again, anywhere else.
This, plus a number of other considerations, lead me to opt for cool skepticism about anything smacking of “cover ups.”
Supporters of Garabandal believe God sent Mary there to
give us the text of the “Third Secret”.
The fatuations some people have about Marian apparitions (to the point that they would put the apparition before the Church) is rather disturbing.
When I heard some Medgegordigian tell me they would leave the Church if the Church condemned the “messages” I just lost any interest in apparitions and pretty much just stick with the Mariology from doctrine. I am more open to approved apparitions (I pray the roasary, I wear the Miraculous Medal), but like Fr. Martin Fox said above, the Church already contains the fullness of revelation.
Living in Texas, I see so many people who just flock to any “our lady of the tortillas” but can’t take the time to go to their parish Church and be in the Presence of God before the Tabernacle. I always support Marian devotion, but not at the expense of denying her Son’s Body, the Church.
I will certainly be interested in hearing more about this book.
Whether the “Third Secret” was revealed by Pope John Paul II or not (and I believe it has because it “fits” in between the first part and end of the entire Fatima message), many people (i.e. Fr, Gruner) use Fatima to deny Vatican II, the Novus Ordo Mass and want the Church to return to former times. I say “Stay close to the Holy Father, our visible head on earth, who will proclaim the truth and guide us to heaven.”
Dcn John: Amen!
My reaction when I read the text of the Third Secret and the Commentary was, So what? I don’t understand why someone would have kept that a secret.
Whatever else there may be to the narrative, Our Lady would never, ever challenge, or undermine, her Son’s chosen vicar on earth. You can try to slice and dice it, wheedle, whine, argue, change the subject, etc., any way you like — but it all comes back to the same thing. Our Incarnate Lord chose Peter, he established the Church on the Rock, and has provided for successors ever since. I believe he has, indeed, sent his mother as a messenger — but note well: she never proclaimed herself the Immaculate Conception until after Peter said it. Not for 1,858 years! Once Peter said it, she said it, even though she knew it all that time. She waited for Peter.
I don’t know why the Pope–who had no reason to bring up the third secret in 2000–would have brought it up, only to give us a piece of it. If they didn’t want to reveal the whole thing, why not just let it rest? No critical mass of people was clamoring for it.
I look forward to your thoughts on the book, Father.
Sister Lucia herself insisted that the whole Third Secret was revealed, so I don’t any stock in conspiracy theorists who claim the Church is lying about it. (Sorry Mother Angelica — I love you, but I can’t agree with you about this.) I certainly don’t put any stock in schismatic, heretical nutburger like Nick Gruner. As a Catholic should, I only deal with approved Marian apparitions and don’t go near the fake ones and the unapproved ones like Medjugorje or Garabandal.
Good for you, Fr. Fox!
I am a great devotee of Our Lady of Fatima, as were Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul II. But I don’t think we are meant to look askance at the Pope. Let’s let him sort it out with the Mother of the Church if he’s not doing what she wants! ;-)
“Do whatever he tells you,” she told those around her when her own Divine Son seemed to resist her request for a bit more wine. I suspect that she would give us the same advice with respect to His Vicar.
Okay, first of all, everbody knows Sister Lucia died (or was imprisoned) in, like, the 80s and that was an imposter Sister Lucia the neocaths put in place to mislead the remnant.
Seriously, though, if the 3rd secret as revealed really is the whole true 3rd secret, why wouldn’t they have revealed it earlier? It just doesn’t make sense. And, there are snippets of the 3rd secrets that leaked out that don’t match what was eventually issued.
getting back to my first point, probably the guys (masons, commies, and bankers) who killed JPIdid the old switcheroo on the secret, or some such
“’Do whatever he tells you,’ she told those around her when her own Divine Son seemed to resist her request for a bit more wine. I suspect that she would give us the same advice with respect to His Vicar.”
Well, not quite “whatever” His Vicar tells us (lest we fall into ultramontane errors), but yes, obedience and submission to the Holy Father is what Mary wants of us . . .
There are too many discrepancies in the “official” version. For one,
I don’t believe that Sr. Lucia opened and responsed to every piece of mail
as she supposedly was said to do. My daughter is a cloistered Carmelite,
and she cannot read her own mail until it is screened first by Mother Prioress.
Think what you might about Fr. Gruner, but when it comes to the message of Fatima,
he is impressively knowledgeable. I’ve read all 4 volumes by the CRC, and cetainly, there is no doubt, that we did not get the whole thing.
Where is that promised peace of our Lady? No! the consecration of Russia has not
been done as Our Lady requested.
Martha
Messori’s criticism of the book is quite sharp.
She never proclaimed herself the Immaculate Conception until after Peter said it. Not for 1,858 years! Once Peter said it, she said it, even though she knew it all that time. She waited for Peter.
Did she not command the miraculous medal to be struck? “O Mary conceived without sin” — what is that a reference to other than the Immaculate Conception?
OK, I’m just being contrarian. ;)
There is an excellent book in Italian on this subject: “Il Papa di Fatima” (The Fatima Pope), written by Renzo Allegri and published by Mondadori. It discusses how John Paul the Great was the “bishop dressed in white,” as well as how the consecration of Russia did take place. Sadly, this is not available in English.
Boko: You wrote: “Okay, first of all, everbody knows Sister Lucia died (or was imprisoned) in, like, the 80s and that was an imposter Sister Lucia the neocaths put in place to mislead the remnant.”
Okay… this is really weird.
“Think what you might about Fr. Gruner, but when it comes to the message of Fatima, he is impressively knowledgeable.”
The Church does not permit Nicholas Gruner to act as a priest or call himself “Father,” so we shouldn’t call him that either.
I was kidding; I don’t really believe that Sister Lucia was replaced by an imposter. Sorry, I thought I was over the top enough that you’d know.
But, Father, that idea is out there. (As well as being OUT THERE.) There are websites with photos of Sister Lucia in the 50s and in the 90s that are contrasted, with the websites showing that they prove that a switch was made. The masons or jews or commies or whoever also replaced Paul VI with a double so’s to better control the Church.
Boko,print off those photos, compare them and you’ll
see its not the same woman. Sr.Lucia wrote down the
Third Secret in 1944 and entered the Carmel in 1948.
Next appearance 1967, alongside Paul VI at
Fatima, smiling and waving at the vast crowds. Like
enclosed nuns do.
There’s more to this Fatima affair then meets the eye.
Oh boy, somebody has left the front door of the asylum unlocked. I’m outta here . . . .
There’s no salvation outside. Having researched Fatima
I’m convinced Our Lady warned of changes to the Liturgy
resulting in loss of the Faith.
In my near 50-years I’ve seen it go, from Credo and
Pater Nosta to “the chances we have missed, lord in your
Eucharist”, from real nuns teaching the Catechism to
bare-headed ladies in jeans running around the
Sanctuary.
It is maddening (“Is it I Lord” week after week is
enough to drive anyone ga-ga).
“The Church does not permit Nicholas Gruner to act as a priest or call himself “Father,†so we shouldn’t call him that either.”
“Eh?” This discussion was about Fatima, so I don’t want to get into Father Gruner.
However, I do know that some years back, calumnators (is that a word?)
were saying that Fr. Gruner was not a priest. He then showed pictures of his
ordination and laid those lies to rest. People say he is suspended, and
that is questionable. Even if he were, he is still entitled to hisbeing
called “Father”.
Bishop Williamson recently said that Our Holy Father has stated that he
regrets having stifled the message of Fatima. According to the Bishop, Our holy
Father claims that his hand was forced. (By the way, I read a lot. My mentioning the SSPX bishop should not be taken as me being associated with the Society.
I do not fear being contaminated or picking up dread diseases by reading Fr. Gruner, or what others traditionalist say or print.)
There is another great book to read: Fatima in Twilight, by Mark Fellows.
Martha
Thats right Martha. A few years back when Cardinal
Sodano was threatening to have him suspended Father
Gruner was incardinated by an Indian Bishop.
I did’nt know Bishop Williamson had said that, but it
confirms a statement made by Father Kramer last year; A
mutual friend said Cardinal Ratzinger told him the Third
Secret concerned an ‘evil Council’ introducing changes
particularly to the liturgy and sacraments.
Which may well explain Pope Benedict’s words and actions
concerning these.
This might be interesting in regard to Fr. Gruner:
Father,
This whole discussion is interesting. What does
“not a priest in good standing” mean?
Yes, Father Fox. I remember. He is a priest in good standing who some years back was
photographed kneeling for a blessing from a Russian schismatic.
But the topic is Fatima.
Our Lady said that “The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted
and a period of peace will be granted to the world.” She did not say that Russia would
be a GOOD schismatic nation. And where is that peace? It’s been over 22 years! ANd
the latest issue of Soul Magazine is warning of annihilation of nations as Our Lady
warned.(Yet they [World Apostolate of Fatima] are the biggest proponents of the party line that the 3rd secret has been revealed.) Sheesh! Some peace.
Martha
and that the consecration of Russia has been made.) Some peace!!!
Dennis, the following is what Bishop Williamson said: I cut and pasted from the Filipino Flavour blog.
Now comes Pope Benedict XVI. We know from a quotation of Cardinal Ratzinger, now the Pope, that he had, shortly before becoming Pope, two regrets. He said, we know this from an Austrian bishop, a colleague of Cardinal Ratzinger. [According to] this bishop, Cardinal Ratzinger said, “I regret two things: One is Fatima.†Meaning, what Cardinal Ratzinger did in 2001, regarding Fatima. At that time, in effect, the Cardinal played an important part in attempting to bury Fatima. Let’s say in 2003, maybe in 2004, he regretted what he had done…or regretted what he had had to do. The Cardinal said, “My hand was forced,†meaning that the Cardinal had been told to bury Fatima.
Interesting Martha that there are two quotes, from around the same
time, repudiating the Vatican Interpretion of the Third Secret.(The
mutual friend of Fr.Kramer and Cardinal Ratzinger was a priest
professor in Rome).
Yes, this Fr.Fox recieving a letter from the Nuncio when Secretary
of State Sodano was hell-bent on destroying Fr.Gruners Apostolate!
Of course Fr.Fox was in the vanguard of those insisting the
Consecration of Russia was made in 1984. Even Sr.Lucy hammered out
letters confirming this from 1989, on that word-processer which
every 80-year old cloistered Carmelite keeps at hand.
What we got in 2000 was, at best, a vision of the Third Secret. The
accompanying text/commentary was witheld. As with the first part of
the Secret where Our Lady showed the children a vision of Hell and
then explained; “You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners
go. In order to prevent this God wishes to establish in the world
devotion to My Immaculate Heart”.
Sr.Lucia even wrote down the opening words of the Third Secret in
her Memoirs (1944) “In Portugal the Dogma of the Faith will always
be preserved, etc”.