Card. Bertone offers up more about the Third Secret of Fatima

Click to buy

Andrea Tornielli has a piece about interviews given by His Eminence Tarcisio Card. Bertone in the days surrounding the beatification of Pope John Paul II during which the topic of the “third secret” of Fatima was brushed up.

At the end of Tornielli’s piece he quotes the Cardinal from an interview with Gr1 during which he said (my trans):

The third mystery of Fatima is fulfilled in part in the description which was made by Sr. Lucia, but as then-Card. Ratzinger said, the Immaculate Hard of Mary will triumph.  It is necessary to cultivate hope and not be pessimists (catastrofici).”

Tornielli analyzes (my trans):

Words completely in harmony with what Benedict XVI affirmed on the flight which took him to Portugal a year ago, as well as in a passage of the homily of the Mass celebrated at Fatima.  In respect to 2000, when the vision of Fatima was offered in a reading which referred only to the past, there is therefore greater caution (“it was fulfilled in part”) and thus leaves open the possibility that not all of the prophecy – understood in the biblical sense and not as a film that describes the future – has yet been fulfilled.

Some of you may be familiar with the book by Antonio Socci, translated into English a few years ago.  Socci took exception to some of the information Card. Bertone was sharing about the Third Secret.

About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

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


  1. prsuth33 says:

    It is well established that the Third Secret was to be revealed in 1960. When Sr. Lucia asked why 1960, the Virgin Mary replied, because it would be “clearer then”. 1960 came and went and all that was released was a communique from the Vatican stating that “the words of the Virgin Mary to the three shepherd children would remain sealed.” In 2000 the Vatican put their own spin on the Third Secret. They released the vision. But, the communique released in 1960 specifically mentioned the “words of the Virgin Mary”. Where is the text in which the Blessed Mother explains the vision of the “bishop dressed in white”? Also, how would a failed assassination attempt in 1981 be clearer in 1960? I could go on and on. Sr. Lucia often spoke of a “diabolical disorientation” that would enter the church at the very top levels in the 1960s. Recently I read a book on Vatican II. The Virgin Mary was relegated to one chapter at the end of the schema on the Church instead of Her own schema so as not to offend those within Protestant circles and thwart the progress of ecumenism. How sad! Truly, the Church has become a place of compromise.

  2. “The Virgin Mary was relegated to one chapter at the end of the schema on the Church instead of Her own schema so as not to offend those within Protestant circles and thwart the progress of ecumenism”

    Do you have a source for that? I’d heard exactly the opposite — that some wanted to leave Mary out of Lumen Gentium, and reserve the material on her for a separate document, to make LG more ecumenically acceptable, but that that was decided against to reaffirm her as Mother of the Church etc.

  3. albizzi says:

    The irrefutable proof that the Vatican has unveiled only a part of the Fatima’s 3rd Secret was recently given by Card. Bertone who never could (or wanted?) to provide the envelope on which the personal secretary of the Pope John XXIII, Mgr Capovilla had written his dictation
    (“I give no judgment”) and the names of all those to whom Pope John had revealed its contents. Bertone has never produced this envelope, even though Capovilla confirmed the existence of the envelope during a telecast in September 2007 arranged by Bertone himself.
    In my opinion retaining unveiled the Secret for 40 years and unveiling only a part in 2000 of it indeed is a serious matter. There is certainly something that is extremely disturbing concerning the postcounciliar Church.
    The number one clues we may get about its content are given by this terrible quote of Cardinal Oddi in march 1990 who said “the Blessed Virgin was alerting us against APOSTASY in the Church.” And even more terrible, from Cardinal Ciappi: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin AT THE TOP.”

    People are too easy in dismissing these facts and speaking of “conspiracy”. Sure, many people rejoice of the beatification of John Paul II, 4 days ago. But is the very sad state the Church is in a good motive of rejoicing? Is the apostasy on the way to be cured?

  4. benedetta says:

    I found that the book, The Last Secret of Fatima by Cardinal Bertone was very helpful to me in trying to know more about Fatima.

    I read this book around the same period of time when I watched a video about St. Padre Pio (I think that it is still available at Ignatius Press). I was completely skeptical about apparitions or the possibility that certain saints might have had these reputed gifts. But in challenging myself to discover what these were really all about I felt that not only had I engaged in what I would at the time have minimized as “healthy skepticism” but moreover I had positioned myself relative to these in a ridiculing posture, something I realized eventually was problematic in many ways.

    At the outset I reminded myself that I need not believe in the apparitions to accept the Church, or to accept the St. Pio did one thing or another, to accept the Church. Expecting in looking further into these things to be shown lots of wow and spectacle in the end my faith was bolstered in looking into it most of all through understanding the humility and the ‘fiat’ demonstrated by those who were the recipients of these remarkable messages. In other words, I came to believe in the fact of these, after having heard for years about the supernatural spectacles, not so much for the spectacle or occurrences alone (which I guess were in some sad way meaningless to me immersed in what I had been immersed in) but for the way various people, saints or not, responded.

  5. prsuth33 says:

    Do you have a source for that? I’d heard exactly the opposite — that some wanted to leave Mary out of Lumen Gentium, and reserve the material on her for a separate document, to make LG more ecumenically acceptable, but that that was decided against to reaffirm her as Mother of the Church etc.

    In “Rhine flows into the Tiber” the priest-journalist stated the fact that the Virgin Mary and her role in the Church and salvation history posed the great debate (outside of the Liturgy) during the council. For three years leading up to the Council in 1962 a commission issued many prepatory schemas–all of which reflected the traditional, orthodox views of the Church, following on the heels of Vatican 1. However, the “European Alliance” managed to exert influence such that nearly all of the schemas were re-written, including the schema on the Virgin Mary. According to the priest journalist who wrote the book (The Rhine…Tiber) one of the only losses for the European Alliance was the title Pope Paul VI declared on the Blessed Mother, that being “Mother of the Church”

  6. alanphipps says:

    I recently read Socci’s “The Fourth Secret of Fatima”. I expected a level-headed treatment of the subject, but I was quite disappointed. While the book contained a few interesting points, it was definitely evident that it was written by a journalist. I would categorize it under “speculative fiction”. Socci makes so many leaps of logic, my head was spinning by the end of it.

    If you actually visit the Shrine, you will find, amazingly, that you are confronted not with the worldly controversies of the Third Secret (that seem to tickle the ears of so many), but rather the Fatima message: prayer, repentance, conversion, reparation. You are called to meditate on the grace of our Lord that was at work in the lives of the visionaries.

    Mr. Alan Phipps, O.P.

  7. RichR says:

    I hear people getting so wound up about the Third Secret of Fatima, and focusing so much on a possible Chastisement that they neglect the guidance offered by Fatima.

    It reminds me of when I tell my little boys to “clean their room, or else no Wii.” Their first response is not to start cleaning their room. It’s to nail down how long they will be without the Wii. “Is that just for today, Dad, or all week? Do we have to clean everything in the room?” IOW, they are not getting the point. The point is to clean their room and avoid the punishment. When someone focuses too much on determining the punishment, what they really are thinking is, “Is this punishment SO bad that I really need to change my behavior?” IOW, they don’t really want a change of heart.

    I often think it regrettable that people are missing the call to repentance and reparation because they are so enamored with the mystery of the Third Secret.

  8. joecct77 says:

    The Immaculate HARD of Mary??

  9. Janey says:

    Yes, Alanphipps, we are called to live the message of Fatima and should not be overly “tickled” about the controversy of the Third Secret. I have just recently read “Windswept House”, which was even less of a level-headed treatment of the subject than Socci (and was intended as fiction), but still does leave me wondering, like Albizzi above, about secrecy and apostasy (at the top) in the Church. While I would like to accept the “official” position on the Third Secret, there does seem to be too much smoke to assume there is no fire. Should a commitment to prayerfulness and conversion preclude a search for the truth?

  10. alanphipps says:

    Hi Janey,

    Much of the smoke, I find, is created not by the alleged “secret truths”, but by conspiracists who only seek to distract you from the truth. That truth we find in Jesus Christ, the Word Incarnate. The bizarre obsession with something that pertains to private revelation such that it would lead one to disobedience, this is the real tragedy that I see. As RichR points out above, it completely misses the point of Fatima and the urgent Fatima message. People love a good conspiracy, even if it means having a lackadaisical attitude with regard to their own salvation.

    Mr. Alan Phipps, O.P.

  11. RichR says:

    A very good, condensed version of the Fatima message is presented in this Emmy Award-winning documentary hosted by Ricardo Montalban.

    It’s not as comprehensive as reading a book (like this one), but it does keep your attention and motivate you.

  12. Ezra says:

    We don’t need a private revelation to tell us that there are dissenting prelates in the Church; newspapers will suffice. As for Malachi Martin: he had some rather odd connections.

  13. Janey says:

    Hi Alan,
    Yes, of course we should not be obsessed, or even unduly distracted by this issue. I have not read enough to know whether the “Fatimists”, such as Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Gruner, have been lead into disobedience (although I don’t think so and I certainly hope not), but I have read enough to say that they do not have a “lackadaisical attitude” about salvation. While there may be those who just add this issue to their list of complaints about the hierarchy in general, there are also those who sincerely believe that the truth here would lead many to prayer and conversion.

  14. gloriainexcelsis says:

    Has Russia indeed been converted? Is there peace in the world? Has the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumphed?

  15. Ezra says:

    I have not read enough to know whether the “Fatimists”, such as Christopher Ferrara and Fr. Gruner, have been lead into disobedience (although I don’t think so and I certainly hope not), but I have read enough to say that they do not have a “lackadaisical attitude” about salvation.

    The Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura has confirmed that Fr Gruner is suspended a divinis. Ferrara has made a name for himself in traditionalist circles by attacking such scourges of the Faith as EWTN and Cardinal Ratzinger; the book he co-authored with Tom Woods (from which Tom Woods has since distanced himself) effectively accuses the Holy Father of heresy on the subject of the Resurrection.

  16. Rich says:

    Personally, it would be just fine for me to know what the Fourth Secret of Fatima is, however, I think it would be really revealing once we get to know what the Twenty-Seventh Secret of Fatima is.

  17. Flambeaux says:


    I could tell you, but then I’d have to dispatch a team of albino assassins, who are also monks of the Personal Prelature of Opus Dei (and secretly Rosicrucian-Freemason-Jesuits and members of the P2 Lodge) to deal with you.



  18. MichaelJ says:

    Yes, there are those enamored with controversy and conspiracy. Cavalierly dismissing these concerns though – to the point of labeling them as “bizzare” – is missing the point.

    Yes, I know that Fatima was a private revelation and that we should “live the Fatima message” (which, ironically, we do not know) but that too is beside the point.

    The point is that for some unknown reason, the Church – up to and including the Pope – has chosen, to put it bluntly, to lie to the faithful. That is something that I cannot so easily dismiss as “not really important”

  19. Banjo pickin girl says:

    The book called Fatima for Today- The Urgent Marian Message of Hope is very good. I read it recently. It’s less shrill and more reasonable than some things I have heard and read about Fatima. A lot of research went into it and it’s well written.

    I’m a convert and this kind of wrangling puts some of us off sometimes.

  20. Centristian says:

    “In respect to 2000, when the vision of Fatima was offered in a reading which referred only to the past, there is therefore greater caution (“it was fulfilled in part”) and thus leaves open the possibility that not all of the prophecy – understood in the biblical sense and not as a film that describes the future – has yet been fulfilled.”

    There is also the possibility that there isn’t anything to be fulfilled. The events and revelations of Fatima do not constitute unquestionable truths of Christianity or inerrant teachings of the Magisterium, but a series of allegations delievered by three children who believe that they experienced something that included apparitions that one of them has identified as Marian in character.

    Not one single Christian is bound to believe in any of it, however. Believe it or not, it seems to me that Fatima was all about a time and events that have come and gone, thus making it no longer relevant, even if it was genuine.

    I say this with all due respect to the Virgin, of course, as well as to those readers of this blog who are firm believers in the events of Fatima.

  21. introibo says:

    Centristian, Fatima itself is not a dogma of the faith. But the evidence in favor of it is so overwheming, not to mention its support from the Popes, that for any serious Catholic to simply disregard it (and I’m not saying you are disregarding it) is bordering on the incomprehensible. Certainly the Fatima message remains relevant. Our Lady said that her Immaculate Heart would triumph, with an ensuing era of peace for mankind. This has not yet taken place.

  22. Janey says:

    Thank you for the clarification and I am sorry to hear that information.

  23. alanphipps says:


    “Yes, there are those enamored with controversy and conspiracy. Cavalierly dismissing these concerns though – to the point of labeling them as “bizzare” – is missing the point.”

    No, those who take these claims seriously are the ones who are missing the point. The fact that you confess no knowledge of the Fatima message and what it takes to live it out is proof of that. You’d rather have your ears tickled and cast Pope Benedict XVI as a liar than heed Our Lady’s requests of prayer, penance, and reparation. I suggest that we reject such hindrances.

  24. Mark of the Vine says:

    I go to Fátima every Sunday (the only authorized diocesan TLM is there) and I never hear people talking about “how the 3rd secret was not fully revealved”. The only times I ever come across such talk are on the internet, and mostly from Americans.

  25. MichaelJ says:

    How do you know the “message of Fatima” if it has not been revealed what Our Lady actually said?

  26. Centristian says:

    “Centristian, Fatima itself is not a dogma of the faith. But the evidence in favor of it is so overwheming, not to mention its support from the Popes, that for any serious Catholic to simply disregard it (and I’m not saying you are disregarding it) is bordering on the incomprehensible. ”

    Evidence? I suppose that depends upon how one defines the word “evidence”. I find myself underwhelmed by Fatima’s evidence, in fact, and by arguments along the lines of “the popes supported it, so one would be imprudent not to.” If all the popes during the timeline of the Fatima events so firmly believed what Fatima supporters believe, it seems odd that they should have ignored the Virgin’s request that the “third secret” be revealed by 1960.

    Personally, I don’t happen to imagine it to be Mary’s role to give orders to the successor of Saint Peter to reveal this or to consecrate that. If it were her place to expect obedience from the Roman Pontiff (and it is not), why should she not simply appear to him face-to-face, explain why Peter should now defer to Mary in matters of the governance of the Church, and then deliver her “secrets” to him, herself, if it was all truly as important and urgent as we are supposed to believe that it was? Why let it percolate from 1917 until heaven only knows when? Is there an expiration date for Fatima?

    The notion that Mary should command Peter (along with his episcopal brethren) to consecrate a nation to her is, frankly, alot to ask catechized Roman Catholics to blindly accept. Who is in charge of the Church? Who holds the keys? Even if that part could somehow make sense, if the matter was so urgent and so centered upon Russia, one wonders why Mary didn’t appear to Russian children, instead, and rather than order Peter to consecrate Russia, instead order the Russian patriarch to lead his flock back into union with Peter?

    I know, I know: God works in mysterious ways and we shouldn’t ever presume to understand God. It’s the all-purpose explanation for every apparent contradiction.

    At any rate, different Fatima believers insist that the rest of us must believe their own version of Fatima. The first group says that the alleged demand of Mary that the Pope, in union with the bishops of the world, consecrate Russia to her immaculate heart, has been fulfilled and that the Soviet Union collapsed as a result. If you don’t believe that, according to this group, then you are very misguided.

    The other group says we cannot accept that consecration of Russia ever took place because Pope John Paul II did it all wrong, and the immoral, decadent, capitalist society that replaced the Soviet Union is proof that the consecrations were not done the way Mary told the Pope to do them. Those who believe otherwise are very misguided.

    I happen to belong to the group that doesn’t accept either point of view. I don’t think that my position is all that incomprehensible, particularly in light of the variety of contradictory Fatima “truths” that one may legitimately believe in.

  27. Brad says:


    “Our Lady said that her Immaculate Heart would triumph, with an ensuing era of peace for mankind. This has not yet taken place.

    Not disagreeing with you per se, but perhaps as with book of Revelation, that which was promised has indeed been fulfilled but not merely on the visible, earthly plane. The “peace for mankind” could be a non-mundane peace of, shall I speculate, Mary has advocated for us in the last 50 years to an unprecedented extent and resultingly has obtained from her Son ever and even greater Mercy, resulting in many departed souls of the last few generations saved from flame in spite of themselves. That is a triumph the Immaculate Heart is well suited for! This little theory of mine could even be seen as not uncoincidental to the rise of St. Faustina’s message and its subsequent embrace by the world and the Church. For all we know, our Lady of Fatima could have advocated so fervently for us that she convinced Christ to go to St. Faustina.

    Again, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart may well have taken place, but above in the throne room (the ultimate reality), not here in mundane affairs.

    Salve, Regina!

  28. Rich says:

    How do you know the “message of Fatima” if it has not been revealed what Our Lady actually said?

  29. albizzi says:

    “Believe it or not, it seems to me that Fatima was all about a time and events that have come and gone, thus making it no longer relevant, even if it was genuine.”

    This is the idea of “personal revelation”which is irrelevant in the case of Fatima.
    How can you interpret the words of our Lady who said several months beforehand: “I will perform a great miracle here on next 13rd October at noon, SO THAT ALL MAY BELIEVE” if not with the intention She had that all believe and convert? And indeed the very day of the Miracle of the Sun, 70000 people kneeled and converted before the overwhelming evidence, including those who went here to scoff.
    Now almost 100 years from this incredible event the diabolical skepticism has taken over many in the Church.
    Poor our Lady: All that for that!
    They are not so hard unbelievers as those who refuse to believe.
    But please let me know: Has the Immaculate Heart of Mary triumphed and Russia converted like she promised? Then how can you say that ” a time and events that have come and gone” if not because you don’t care about the conversion of Russia (that’s enough that Russia is no longer a major threat to the US, isnt’it) and still less about the triumph of our Lady’s Immaculate Heart.
    Very sad.
    But even our Holy Father himself declared in his homily at Fatima in 2010: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic message is complete.” and he wished that “the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the apparitions” may “hasten the fulfillment of the prophecy of the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, to the glory of the Blessed Trinity.”

    Fatima no longer relevant. What a nonsense!

  30. pookiesmom says:

    I remember as a Catholic grade school student in the 50s being very intrigued by the 3rd secret to be revealed sometime in the early 60s. Whatever! The basic message from our Blessed Mother seems to be the same as for all her appearances–penance, reparation for sins, pray the rosary daily with a warning to the Fatima children that if people didn’t pray the rosary every day and reform their lives the errors of Communism would spread throughout the world. That definitely has happened as secularism, atheism, humanism, radical feminism, materialism have infected just about every aspect of modern life even creeping into the Church as well. As for the conversion of Russia I read somewhere the opinion that this means the reunification of the Orthodox Church with Rome…whether all the secret is out seems a little moot. We all need to pray and do penance as directed by the Blessed Mother.

  31. St. Rafael says:

    Andrea Tornielli is going to speak next week at Fr. Gruner’s Fatima conference, “Consecration Now.”
    The conference starts next week for five day with lectures and talks every day. The conference seeks to help persuade Pope Benedict to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of of Mary as Our Lady of Fatima requested and is still waiting for.

    Andrea Tornielli’s talk is titlied “Attack on Pope Benedict XVI and the Message of Fatima”

    The conference will be on Italian tv, and streamed for free on the internet at the following website:

  32. St. Rafael says:

    Everyday we move closer to World War III which will occur because God’s mandate from Heaven is not obeyed and the Fatima message continues to be ignored. Failure to consecrate Russian will lead to the future historical event of the “bishop dressed in white” vision.

  33. Ezra says:

    Andrea Tornielli is going to speak next week at Fr. Gruner’s Fatima conference

    I mentioned Fr Gruner’s suspension above. Those interested in learning more might profit from reading this Wanderer article by Pete Vere and Shawn McElhinney.

  34. iudicame says:

    Wow – to be “obsessed” with the words of the Blessed Virgin – Mother of God.

    NOTHING really matters now, does it? Better we should focus on the “spirit” of the message than on the pesky details.


  35. St. Rafael says:

    Fr. Gruner has been part of an unjust persecution by the former secretary of state Cardinal Sodano, Cardinal Hoyos, and others for decades, that led to an unjust and illegal suspension. Fr. Gruner was ordained in Avellino Italy in had been carrying out his apostolate in Canada with the bishop’s permmission since 1978.

    After years of harrassment and thuggery too great to go into detail, he was ordered to be incardinated in another diocese or come back to Avellino. Sodano wanted to destroy his Fatima apostolate because of Fr. Gruner’s courageous stance on the truth of the Fatima saga and message.
    Sodano even got a corrupt Canadian bishop to offer Fr. Gruner incardination in Canada with the request he close his apostolate.

    Long story short, Fr. Gruner got three bishops who were friends and supporters, to incardinate him. All three were one by one blocked by Sodano. Then on 9-12-2001, Fr. Gruner was so-called suspended for failing to be incardinated, even though he was blocked from doing it. He was suspended because failed to do what Sodano himself had made sure he didn’t do, get incardinated. Completely illegal action in the office of the secretary of state.

    Fr. Gruner had committed no crime, no heresy, no schism, no denial of dogma, or doctrine, yet he was suspended a day after the 9-11 terrorist attack. The absurdity of it struck even the most objective observers. You had priests raping children, and bishops denying doctrine, during all these years, and they go after one faithful priest. The appeals process is another nightmare too great to go into, but it is enough to say that three canon laywers were forced to resign from Fr. Gruner’s defense in appeal due to pressure from some in the Vatican.

    Fr. Gruner’s innocence and all these factual events can be found on the internet for those interested in the truth.

  36. catholicmidwest says:

    I’ve heard this so many times: “with an ensuing era of peace for mankind,” but I have no idea what is meant by that, precisely. Do people really believe that there will be an era of global political peace? Good luck with that. This is the same problem I have with the wacky progressive “peace & justice people.” That’s not what religion is about at all, unless you’re some kind of Seventh Day Adventist or something like that.

  37. catholicmidwest says:

    PS, I understand Akita better. It’s a flat out warning to knock off the crap. That I get.

    But most of the time, when I hear about Fatima, it’s some very naive, peculiar stuff I hear. It sounds like a lot of magical thinking to me. I just don’t understand some naive idea that everything is going to come to a screeching halt for an “ensuing era of peace for mankind.” The whole “convert Russia” thing is puzzling to me too. It makes no sense to me.

  38. St. Rafael says:

    An era of peace means there will be actual peace in the world. No more wars for a while. There will be the peace of Christ. Sin will still be around, but there will be a confortable peace. Economics and politics will be ordered to the economic social teaching of the Church and in he moral teaching. The nations will all become Catholic. The social reign of Christ the King will spread out to the whole world.

    The prophesies of the saints and mystics, will come true, with the Catholic Church reaching heights in glory as never before in history. The priesthood and religious life will be restored. There will be an expolsion of priests, nuns, and religious. Family life will explode with happy marriages and many children. It will be the era of Mary, and her Immaculate Heart will be venerated throughout the world.

  39. @St Rafael: Where do you get that ‘strong’ interpretation of “a period of peace”?

    Fatima was addressed to Portuguese children. I’m not sure it even needs to mean world peace, even in the limited sense of ‘absence of war’. It might simply refer to the post-Cold-War decade, which I’ve seen described as “a vacation from history” … or even a longer period, depending on whether you think the current War on Terror counts as a lack of peace in (Western?) Europe. (A second World War, Russia ‘spreading its errors’ – presumably meaning Communism -, then a period of peace, strikes me as a pretty good description of the remainder of the 20th century.)

    @catholicmidwest: I rather agree. Fatima is one of the stronger (=more clearly supernatural) private revelations, but I think that has driven an over-interpretation of its details. It’s a vision (or rather set of visions), which are generally not super-literal by nature… and the steps of interpretation (and translation, for most of us!) in between the actual vision and us may make it less so. “Conversion of Russia” could mean as little as the end of Communism and the return of Christianity to the public sphere… it could mean the return/reunion of the Russian Orthodox Church to the Catholic fold… it could mean as much as a strongly Christian Russia becoming a major player and driver in world Christianity.

  40. prsuth33 says:

    Our Lady stated emphatically that if the consecration was done, specifically mentioning Russia by name (which Pius XII did), in union with the bishops of the world, Russia would be converted and there would be an era of peace. Blessed John Paul II’s consecration in 1984 did NOT mention Russia, nor was it in union with the bishops of the world. So the story goes, Bishop Hnilinca found the Holy Father after the consecration and said “But, your Holiness, the consecration was not done in union with the bishops of the world”. Blessed JP responded something to the effect “you convince them, I tried.”

    Many are skeptical about the effects of the consecration if done properly. “I’m tired of people thinking this is like a vending machine. Put in the coin. Press a button. Get a bag of chips (or some such thing). It doesn’t work that way.”

    How would you respond to Guadalupe? In a span of 9 years after the visit of the Blessed Mother to Juan Diego, between 8-10 million human sacrificing aztecs converted to Catholicism.

    Our Lady said Russia would be converted. Is Russia converted? 140,000,000 people. Less than 500,000 are Catholic and they are persecuted at that. Russia has succeeded in convincing the world that communism fell with the Berlin Wall in 1989. People! It is all a deception. They are waiting for the proper time to strike.

  41. @prsuth33: I don’t get what you’re saying about “convincing the world that communism fell with the Berlin Wall in 1989”.

    No, Russia did not convert to Catholicism. It is, however, not Communist any more. As for “communism fell with the Berlin Wall”, well, there are still North Korea and Cuba; and China is still pseudo-communist-totalitarian, though its economy is more and more capitalist; and Communism and at least Communist-influenced ideologies have influence in Latin America. Communism isn’t dead in the sense of nonexistent; but it is discredited globally. The last remnants may hang on for decades, but a real resurgence of Communism — certainly on anything like the scale it existed during the Cold War period — much less a reSovietization of Russia,– seems colossally unlikely.

    Now, Russia isn’t really a very free, First-Worldish country now… but it’s definitely not Communist. It’ll be something else. My expectation (though I *hope* not, of course!) is that it will sink deeper into a swamp of government corruption and become fully a Third World “democracy-so-corrupt-it’s-not-really-democracy”, eventually losing any real claim to be a major power. But not all unfree governments are Communist; and I do think the Marx-descended Communism-with-a-capital-C is permanently dead or at least irretrievably dying; even the countries that claim to follow it largely don’t.

    I’d even make the stronger claim that if — for the sake of argument — Communism somehow did make a major resurgence, it couldn’t become a world-threatening power again. The circumstances that let the Soviet Union attain global-scale power despite an unworkable nonsense ideology are probably unrepeatable.

  42. albizzi says:

    “An era of peace for mankind” means exactly what this means… an era of peace. Why adding: “good luck with that”?
    Your comment is sad in that it shows that you (like many other in the Church) are not confident in the power of God through our Lady’s intercession. What a lack of faith.
    However properly consecrating Russia (in union with the bishops worldwide) to the Immaculate Heart of Mary isn’t great stuff, but it has proven unsurmountable to at least 6 or 7 popes under various and fallacious pretexts.

    Regarding Fr Gruner, not defending himself against some vicious plots of Vatican’s bureaucrats would be like ceasing immediately his Fatima’s apostolate that the recent developments in the controversial official Churc’s stance have made even more worthy to fight for.
    One may compare Fr Gruner with the late Abbé de Nantes who himself was suspended and claimed a just and legitimate canonical trial from the Vatican… which John Paul II always refused bcs it would have granted the late Abbé the occasion to talk aloud about his “Liber Accusationis”.
    It is odd to notice how the Vatican strives to silent the ones who are upholding puzzling truths while those who spread errors and scandals are left free to proceed in the RCC’s destruction.

  43. @albizzi: The stronger interpretations of ‘an era of peace’ sound uncomfortably postmillennialist. A real triumph of the Church within history just isn’t what we were promised. When the Roman Empire Christianized, and Christianity looked to be filling the known world, Islam swallowed up a huge chunk of it, restricting Christianity to a chunk of Europe plus Anatolia. The Middle Ages had an actual Christian civilization, and northern Europe became Christian, but schism split the whole thing in two, and it still was only a tiny part of the world, often outmatched or at least severely threatened by its foes. When Christian Europe really pulled ahead of Islamic civilization, and carried Christianity to the New World, the Protestant Reformation tore Christendom apart. I simply don’t think an era of universal or near-universal Catholicism is a likely interpretation of that prophecy. Especially given the context — it’s right next to the stuff about a World War, so I don’t think “a period of peace” need necessarily mean more than “lack of war among the major nations”… in which case we may be living in it, especially if one assumes Fatima was Europe-centric.

    It’s not the same as saying God COULDN’T do all the other stuff, but that that interpretation of the prophecy is questionable.

    And didn’t even Sr. Lucia say that yes, Russia was consecrated correctly?

  44. prsuth33 says:

    A high ranking KGB official defected to the USA in the early 1960’s. He has stated bluntly that the “fall of communism” in 1989 was a ruse. Below is a book that he wrote that, coincidentally, is very hard to find these days…

    The Perestroika Deception : Memoranda to the Central Intelligence Agency (Paperback)

    In this disturbing and insightful work, Anatoly Golitsyn displays his encyclopedic knowledge of Soviet strategy and the fate of the West. Mr. Golitsyn has a 94% accuracy record of predicting Soviet strategy from his last work, “New Lies for Old.” If the West wants to survive, it should listen to Anatoly Golitsyn in “The Perestroika Deception.”

  45. If he defected to the US in the 60s, how could he have any special inside knowledge of Soviet strategy in the late 80s?

    The idea that the fall of Communism was faked, at least in the stronger form (yes, ex-KGB types do retain positions in the Russian government… but it is not a Communist government) is simply not feasible. The marvel is not the fall of the Soviet Union but that it didn’t fall sooner — it was rotting from within from very early on, since that sort of economy can’t work.

    And even if per impossibile it *had* been done on purpose, they messed up badly – the current situation is still one from which a Communist resurgence isn’t feasible. Communism (in its 20th century form) is still dead, even if the death was by suicide.

  46. rachmaninov says:

    Let me put another angle on this era of peace. Pope Benedict in various ways has actually confirmed Fatima concerns events right up to the end of the world. In his letter to Bishop Paulo Hnilica on 13 September 2000, he stated ” Similarly we see in the “secret of Fatima” the martyrs of the last century, in which, however, reflected the persecution until the end of the world.
    Also he confirmed on the plane to Fatima last year that the Church will be persecuted until the end of the world. Finally and this nobody seems to have noticed, in his recent book with Peter Seewald, he specifically said that the prayer for the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary was the same in meaning for the coming of the Kingdom of God (which as we know from the Catechism refers to the New heaven and new earth after the Last Judgement) I have never read any papal statement which implies an era of peace before the end of the world. It would also tie in with the Divine Mercy revelations which clearly stated Jesus’ final coming is near.

  47. prsuth33 says:

    To: abiologistforlife

    I really hope you’re right. Bella Dodd was way before my time. Have you heard of her? What am I to make of her testimony from the 50s until her death? Was that all a ruse? Was Archbishop Sheen not responsible for her conversion? Did he not tell her to speak of the evils of communism as a penance for her involvement within the organization? She said that the only recognized enemy to communism was the Catholic Church. So, the reds put together a plan to infiltrate the Church–she testified that she was responsible for seeing this through–which led to hundreds of men entering seminaries throughout the US and the world with the intent of sowing seeds of evil as a means to bring the Church down within. Is this conspiracy or did this really happen?

    I will say this: if “The Rhine Flows into the Tiber” is an accurate account of the Second Vatican Council I find it very, very disturbing. Not once was communism denounced in the official documents. But, for the first time, the word “dialogue” appeared no less than 26 times.

    Is this book an objective look into the council? I am asking because I don’t truly know. If it is, Lord have Mercy!

  48. alanphipps says:


    You are correct re: “an era of peace”. Many of these comments reveal folks reading far too much of their own interpretations into the simple words of the Blessed Mother to the visionaries. The actual Fatima message of prayer, repentance, and reparation then gets lost in all of the intrigue surrounding the Third Secret Conspiracy and allegations of Vatican coverup and lies. If our concern is on the development of an interior life, devotion to the Blessed Mother, and nourishing a relationship with Our Lord Jesus Christ through the sacraments of His Church, then we ought to avoid such conspiratorial and paranoid musings, however juicy they may sound. They become mere worldly distractions, and if I might presume to suggest that it is this type of thing Our Lady would have no part in.

    Mr. Alan Phipps, O.P.

  49. @prsuth33: Maybe I should be clearer. I don’t think it’s a simple binary matter of “was it all a ruse?” — the question of whether Communist conspiracies, or Communist attempts to subvert either the West or the Church, existed is sharply distinct from the question of whether they were meaningfully successful.

    I also think that the ideological nature of Communism makes it messy to distinguish between actual conspiracies/subversions (in the sense of something organized by the Soviets et al.), versus “native”, conscious Communist movements in the US, versus groups / movements / tendencies not fully Communist but sympathetic or tending in that direction. One can’t always draw sharp lines. I certainly agree that the Soviets were trying to subvert, but I think it’s also easy to put too much emphasis on that and too little on “native” Communist and Communist-sympathizing tendencies… Communism wasn’t a Soviet invention, after all.

    But either way, they’re dead (or functionally so) now. Whatever either side did in the Cold War, that conflict is decisively over. The dangerous ideologies now are very different, and I don’t think Communism has a meaningful chance of real reemergence (as opposed to lingering on in previously Communist countries – and even there in an increasingly nominal form; China, the only large nation still nominally Communist, is still pretty totalitarian/oppressive, but not really functionally very Communist anymore – it’s pretty much participating in the world market.) Communism was an answer to late-19th/early-20th century problems; a very wrong one, granted, but the *questions* are different now, and both because of that – and because of the obvious failure of the Soviet Union et al. – it doesn’t strike me as likely to ever go much of anywhere again.

    Which doesn’t mean we won’t face other nasty, atheist-materialist, even totalitarian ideologies… but they won’t be Communism.

    Why was communism not denounced explicitly in the Second Vatican Council? Well, I obviously can’t –know– why, but I don’t think it inherently suggests something ominous or underhanded. Ecumenical Councils are generally very messy things — which is why I don’t find revelations about the process of Vatican II particularly worrisome; they don’t strike me as all that different from all the other councils — and what they address isn’t always what, in the light of hindsight, we think they *should* address. In other words, I’m not sure there needs to be any ulterior motive or any explanation more complex than “it wasn’t on the agenda”.

    (There’s also the possibility that they didn’t want to aggravate the world situation & possibly increase tensions which could lead t0 nuclear war — the Cuban Missile Crisis was 1962, after all…)

  50. Centristian says:

    “Your comment is sad in that it shows that you (like many other in the Church) are not confident in the power of God through our Lady’s intercession. What a lack of faith.”

    Whose comment is sad? Here, we see a Catholic scolding another Catholic for having a lack of faith based upon his personal reaction to a private revelation. Because of this, many of us “are not confident in the power of God…”.


    This is what can happen when too much emphasis is placed upon private revelations by the Church. When private revelations are allowed to dominate the culture of the Church, as they have been allowed to dominate it, now, for over a century, that is what Catholics focus on as Gospel…instead of the Gospels. It is even to the point where Catholics will have more faith in alleged private revelations than in the Church itself. Given the choice between fawning over the “seers” of Medjugorje and obeying the Church officials who have refused to permit Catholics to give their belief to this alleged apparition, many Catholics have decided that the Church is wrong and the “seers” are right, and remain devoted to “Our Lady of Medjugorje”…an entity that doesn’t exist.

    For some Catholics, something like Fatima can become Gospel, and even central to the Faith, rather than one optional embellishment to it. It’s no longer the allegation by some children of a series of events that we are allowed to believe occurred. No. Some have decided for all of us (no matter that they haven’t any right to so decide) that the alleged events of Fatima are indisputable historical facts, as factual as the signing of the Magna Carta and the Battle of Bull Run. And heaven help any Catholic who should question any of it.

    Public revelation ended with the death of Saint John the Apostle. Public revelation is indisputably genuine. Private revelations, on the other hand, are not indisputably genuine. They are indisputably private, however, as opposed to public…that’s why we call them that. They may or may not have happened. And even if they did happen, they didn’t happen to you, they happened to someone else, and you needn’t pay any attention to them, therefore, no matter how authentic they are, and no matter which pope had a particular devotion to any one of them or another.

    No Catholic should have his faith called into question simply because he does not value the alleged events and messages of Fatima.

  51. albizzi says:

    Centristian, you dare to write:
    …” the alleged events and messages of Fatima.”
    Those 70000 people who saw the sun spinning and circling in the sky ALLEGEDLY witnessed what everyone except yourself, holds as the Miracle of the Sun, and those who saw Jesus performing alleged miracles, or allegedly claimed He was ressurected, they are not trustworthy, too?
    Yes indeed what stubbornness! Putting the Fatima’s apparition in the “private revelation’s box” truly is an easy and very soft pillow to keep sleeping quiet.

  52. @albizzi: I think Fatima was real (70,000 people, as you state), but as for the “private revelation box” – Fatima IS a private revelation. “Private revelation” doesn’t mean “one person only”, it means “not forming part of the deposit of faith”. *All* post-Apostolic revelations (until the Second Coming, anyway) are private revelations.

    And private revelations are judged by the Magisterium, not vice versa.

    Centristian is mostly correct; I would quibble on the part about “Some have decided … that the alleged events of Fatima are indisputable historical facts” – because I would argue that the Fatima events are precisely that, matters of history, rather than of faith. I suppose “indisputable” might be slightly strong — but 70,000 people, after all… it is better attested than most historical events.

  53. terrigr says:

    This is just my 2 cents worth. I think the third secret had to do with the infiltration of pedophiles and homosexuals priests in the church. It probably was worded different but what Pope would want to announce that the Church would be infiltrated with evil. That could lead to people leaving the Church and not trusting bishops and the Pope, which by the way has happened anyway. Whether you believe in the secret or not, a lot of bad things happened to the church after the 1960’s. I live in a conservative state and I didn’t really see the changes until the 1980’s. Let us all pray for our Church. By the way, I feel sorry for Father Gruner. Other priests and bishops can teach heresy and give communion to those committing adultery and nothing happens to them.

  54. robtbrown says:

    The text of the 3rd secret released by the Vatican is written in prophetic language. That means that it is symbolic and figurative, not a detailed prediction of events.

    And so the big city half in ruins could refer to Christendom, which of course could include not only the devastation of war but also apostasy, the devastation caused by a faithlessness and immorality.

  55. albizzi says:

    In all the “private revelations” since the first coming of Jesus pls let me know if any similar miracle, astronomically sized, the kind that even Jesus never performed during his time on earth, ever happened? In addition the exact date and hour of the Miracle of the Sun were predicted to the kids by our Lady with that comment “SO THAT ALL MAY BELIEVE”, thus explaining the huge crowd that was attending here on oct 13rd 1917.
    And you don’t believe too?
    I myself feel OBLIGED to believe. I believe that this miracle was the Seal of God and that ALL the messages given to the kids and later to Sr Lucy are VERY serious.
    The stance of the Vatican approving the apparitions, but downplaying the ultimate secret Sr Lucy was given by our Lady (“Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the WORDS the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them.” [Non signed press release of the Vatican in 1960 declining to unveil the Secret ]) looks very suspicious if one digs even a little in the issue.
    In particular, one has to notice that:
    1/ Nowhere in the Secret’s part the Vatican unveiled in 2000 can anyone find any WORD of the Virgin.
    2/One has to wonder, in the VISION Sr Lucy is describing in the year 2000’s unveiled part, what is is the event of which the veracity could be questioned by the Vatican in 1960 whereas it was not questioned in 2000.

  56. albizzi says:

    Regarding Sr Lucy saying (in 1989 do I remember?) that the Consecration of Russia performed in 1984 by JPII had been properly done, one has to notice that she said the contrary for almost 5 years according to a lot of trustworthy witnesses) . This abrupt reversal is hard to explain by anyone if not by the late Abbé Georges de Nantes who claimed that she was ordered to say so by her hierarchy since the local portuguese bishop Do Amaral himself confided him that he was entrusted by the Vatican to convey that strange order.

  57. Nancy D. says:

    The question is, why wasn’t the Consecration of Russia done as Our Lady initially requested and why was the Filioque left out of Dominus Iesus , when the synthesis of all heresies, the denial of the unitive and creative inherent nature of The Lord And Giver Of Life, has resulted in some within The Catholic Church being allowed to condone contraception, abortion, infanticide, euthanasia, homosexual sexual relationships and the engaging in demeaning sexual acts, fornification…, without being anathema , when the fact is, the charitable anathema has always existed for the sake of Christ, His Church, and all those who will come to believe through The Word of God as revealed to His Church in the trinitarian relationship of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and The Teaching of The Magisterium?

Comments are closed.