Is Anyone familiar with the Third Secret of Fatima?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guardian333
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is intellectually retarded for one to claim that he recognizes and loves the Church and then disobey the valid and lawful commands of the Pope regarding a disciplinary matter. A priest who is suspended ought to cease his public ministry until such time as he has been lawfully reinstated by the Church and his jurisdiction restored.

You can’t claim to “love” Christ and then disobey his Body.
 
Has Dan Brown chimed in on this thread yet?:rolleyes:

I wish Fatima’s third secrect was all we had to worry about.
 
This thread has strayed off topic. Please return the discussion to OT or I will have to close the thread. Thank you, everyone.
 
Has Dan Brown chimed in on this thread yet?:rolleyes:

I wish Fatima’s third secrect was all we had to worry about.
Good point…Fatima is one thing. I am MUCH more worried about the Opus Dei assassin’s. I think I saw one peeking in my window last night! He had a walkie-talkie and was corresponding with aliens who were flying over my house using infrared scanners to monitor my brain waves and my thoughts. Luckily I have my trusty tin-foil lined helmet that doesn’t let them see my thoughts!
 
Gorbachev: “Gentlemen, comrades, do not be concerned about all you hear about glasnost and perestroika and democracy in the coming years. These are primarily for outward consumption. There will be no significant change within the Soviet Union, other than for cosmetic purposes. Our aim is to disarm the Americans and let them fall asleep.”
Source now please.
 
See post #48 for the original exchange with member bear06.
I am reposting this in order to prevent others from closing this thread. Please be courteous to those of us who would like to hear more on this very relevant topic:
Greetings. I have read this article concerning Bertone vs Socci. It is an analysis/report of the quotes/statements by Bertone from Bertone’s book (The Last Visionary of Fatima) in response to a book by Socci (The Fourth Secret of Fatima): (for citations consult either these books or consult the Remnant Newspaper online and contact the author)

** Bertone vs. Socci **

Christopher A. Ferrara
REMNANT COLUMNIST, New Jersey

Cardinal Bertone attempts an answer to Antonio Socci’s explosive book accusing the Vatican of covering up the Third Secret of Fatima, but the Cardinal only succeeds in embarrassing himself and confirming the suspicions of the faithful.

. Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, has published a small book, The Last Visionary of Fatima, which attacks the Italian intellectual Antonio Socci for having concluded in his own book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, that the Vatican is concealing a text of the Third Secret. Socci’s conclusion brings to a rolling boil the long-simmering conviction among the faithful that, as Mother Angelica put it on her national television show in 2001, “we didn’t get the whole thing.”

Socci is a highly respected mainstream Catholic commentator who has conducted press conferences for both Bertone and the former Cardinal Ratzinger. Bertone had no choice but to attempt an answer…

But, as Socci shows in his response to Bertone’s book in the Italian newspaper Libero, Bertone’s effort is a major embarrassment to him and to the Vatican—a disaster, in fact, because it leaves untouched the entire case in support of the thesis that the Vatican is hiding part of the Secret, while* raising still more doubts about Bertone’s credibility.* At the same time, Bertone demeans his high office by recklessly hurling invective at Socci, pronouncing his contentions “ravings,” calling him a deliberate liar (“mendace”), and even accusing him of the tactics of Freemasonry, which has to be one of the most ironic remarks of the post-conciliar epoch. * Bertone acts like a desperate, wounded man instead of the Vatican Secretary of State…*

…As Socci observes in his reply, Bertone’s book not only fails to answer any of the points he raised in The Fourth Secret of Fatima, but also “poses further problems. I was even embarrassed to read a thing so bungled and self-wounding.” For example, in order to bolster the Vatican party line that the Message of Fatima (and thus the Third Secret) belongs to the past because Russia has already “converted,” Bertone “credits the rumor that Gorbachev, in the historic visit to Pope Wojtyla of December 1, 1989, ‘made a mea culpa’ before the Pope”—a myth that was “officially denied by the Vatican Press Office on March 2, 1998.”…

IMPORTANT: Actually these words were taken from Cardinal Bertone’s OWN book, The Last Visionary of Fatima as can be viewed from this excerpt of the article below:

Another self-inflicted wound is Bertone’s statement that “Sister Lucy never worked with a computer.” Here Bertone forgets that, when it was expedient for him to do so, he asserted precisely the opposite: that Sister Lucy “even used a computer” in 1989—a claim that, as Socci notes, “served to accredit certain letters that Sister Lucy had not written in her own hand and which contradicted everything she had said before on the consecration of Russia.” Bertone has thus undermined all claims that Sister Lucy was the author of those letters.

Special Note: Bertone has not denied making the quotes in his own book (obvious?) nor his quotes in Socci’s book (😉 )

Note: For clarification and cited references consult the following books/article:
*The Last Visionary of Fatima *by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, and The Fourth Secret of Fatima by the renowned Italian intellectual Antonio Socci. (also the author of this article Christopher A. Ferrara Remnant Columnist)
I hope this helps with your confusion, GOD bless.
 
I would like to make the point that the Consecration of Russia and the question of the release (or non-release) of the Third Secret really has nothing to do with Fr. Gruner. In fact, even if Fr. Gruner reversed his position on these issues tomorrow, but did not provide sufficient reason, I would not be swayed.

The Consecration of Russia seems to revolve around a few things. 1. What the Blessed Virgin asked for. 2. The fact that Russia was not mentioned in the 1984 consecration. 3. The alleged fruits of the 1984 consecration (particularly when compared with the fruits in Mexico of the appearance of Our Lady of Guadalupe).
 
When you quote the word converted, what is it that you think she meant? **Yes converted, but converted to what? **Could you site your references please? Thank you.🙂
It would seem to me that Russia must be converted to the One True Church not just Christianity in general.

'What Our Lady wants is that the ****Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, She will **convert **Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the ‘world’."
 
It would seem to me that Russia must be converted to the One True Church not just Christianity in general.

'What Our Lady wants is that the ****Pope and all the bishops ****in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day. If this is done, She will **convert **Russia and there will be peace. If it is not done, the errors of Russia will spread through every country in the ‘world’."
Does she give a time frame? Perhaps now that the destructive errors of communism have been mostly destroyed a time will come when Christianity will thrive again. The mention of “errors” makes me think that Our Lady was making reference to communism. The spread of communism and atheism was a very very dangerous thing at that time. I don’t think we can say that because Russia doesn’t seem totally Christian, the consecration was done wrong.
 
Since when did Jesus promise that those in the Vatican could never sin? Keep in mind that among the apostles chosen by Jesus, by God Himself, one *betrayed *Him, one *denied *Him, three times even after warned, **and only one remained faithful **by His side at His death. Why does everybody seem to think that in this age the words, the warnings, of Jesus Christ and His Holy Mother, will not come to pass? He warned of Judas, of Peter, of the Apostles abandoning Him before it even gets hard. Then He sends His Holy Mother to warn His people that it’s happening again, and everybody blows her off. What is so difficult to understand?
Are you actually saying that they are lying about the Third Secret? And, BTW, where did I ever say that “the Vatican could never sin”? I, myself, wouldn’t actually make that accusation without hard evidence of them actually doing so. There is none of this. There is just a whole lot of speculation.
 
For example, as with St. Athanasius. The Pope accepted the Arian heresy
Prove that one. Please, actually study up on the history before you make such claims. Here’s a link that show multiple sources on Pope Liberius. To compare St. Athanasius and Fr. Gruner is laughable. The martyr complexes are growing by the minute.

phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?showtopic=9671
He is infallible when defining Faith and Morals and that is all (see Vatican Council I) and that is where we can be “blindly obedient,” simply because in that situation he is guaranteed to be free from error.
You might also want to go back and read Pastor Aeternus in its entirety.
Is Fr. Gruner truly a disobedient priest? St. Paul opposed St. Peter, our first Pope, publicly to his face, as he himself said. Sometimes it is necessary, as St. Thomas Aquinas makes very clear.
And who is the arbiter on the matter? Did Peter ever tell Paul he was disobedient. And, BTW, this is another poor example. This wasn’t a case of Peter using Papal authority. This was a case of Peter making a PRIVATE error.
 
Does she give a time frame? Perhaps now that the destructive errors of communism have been mostly destroyed a time will come when Christianity will thrive again. The mention of “errors” makes me think that Our Lady was making reference to communism. The spread of communism and atheism was a very very dangerous thing at that time. I don’t think we can say that because Russia doesn’t seem totally Christian, the consecration was done wrong.
Well, it’s been 23 years since the 1984 Consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And from what I understand, the fruits of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart are to help establish devotion to Mary’s Immaculate Heart all over the world. Yet if there is a huge time difference, and/or nothing much happens in Russia beyond a political change, it’s hard to see how anything that is happening in Russia right now could help establish that devotion.

In fact, I think it’s been said that there are fewer Catholics in Russia now than in 1917.
 
Well, it’s been 23 years since the 1984 Consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And from what I understand, the fruits of the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart are to help establish devotion to Mary’s Immaculate Heart all over the world. Yet if there is a huge time difference, and/or nothing much happens in Russia beyond a political change, it’s hard to see how anything that is happening in Russia right now could help establish that devotion.

In fact, I think it’s been said that there are fewer Catholics in Russia now than in 1917.
First, this is all from a private revelation so it does not have any bearing on the Deposit of Faith and is not required to be believed in. This is something that Fr Gruner seems to ignore.

Second, Pope John Paul II said that he did the consecration and Sr Lucia said that it was done. So it would seem that both of these very holy people are liars, that is if Fr Gruner is to be believed.

Third, the same goes for the Third Secret. Pope John Paul II released it and Sr Lucia agreed that it was the Third Secret, again they must both be liars if one believes Fr Gruner (by the way this man has never seen the Third Secret so how can he say it was not released?).

Fourth, can you show me where Mary said that the Consecration of Russia would mean that there would be more Catholics in Russia? I am sure that there are more Orthodox in Russia today than when Communism held the country in its power. But then again, it doesn’t really matter as it is not part of the Deposit of Faith and does not require belief by faithful Catholics.
 
First, this is all from a private revelation so it does not have any bearing on the Deposit of Faith and is not required to be believed in. This is something that Fr Gruner seems to ignore.

Second, Pope John Paul II said that he did the consecration and Sr Lucia said that it was done. So it would seem that both of these very holy people are liars, that is if Fr Gruner is to be believed.

Third, the same goes for the Third Secret. Pope John Paul II released it and Sr Lucia agreed that it was the Third Secret, again they must both be liars if one believes Fr Gruner (by the way this man has never seen the Third Secret so how can he say it was not released?).

Fourth, can you show me where Mary said that the Consecration of Russia would mean that there would be more Catholics in Russia? I am sure that there are more Orthodox in Russia today than when Communism held the country in its power. But then again, it doesn’t really matter as it is not part of the Deposit of Faith and does not require belief by faithful Catholics.
ByzCath,

Yes, I agree that Fatima is not a part of the Deposit of Faith and it is not required for a Catholic to believe in it even if the Church has approved it as a genuine apparition. In fact, I don’t know of anyone associated with Fr. Gruner who would dispute that.

When the Blessed Virgin Mary says that if her requests are not heeded, “Russia will spread her errors throughout the world raising up wars and persecutions against the Church, the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated” I tend to take that quite seriously. Conversely, if Russia is consecrated, the conversion of that nation is promised along with a period of peace.

Further, when the Blessed Virgin Mary through the grace of God ratifies the messages with probably the greatest public miracle since Biblical times I assume it is because we are supposed to take notice and take it seriously. I assume God is doing this for a reason, even if Catholics don’t have to heed the message or even believe.

So I honestly don’t even understand the attitude of “it doesn’t really matter as it is not part of the Deposit of Faith and does not require belief by faithful Catholics.”

I mention the lack of conversions because the Blessed Virgin Mary said that if Russia were consecrated Russia would be converted. I think that means conversion to the Catholic faith. When the native tribes in Mexico were converted because of the intervention of Our Lady of Guadalupe it was a mass conversion directly related to the apparition. And the conversions were to the Catholic Faith. Also, I don’t even think Orthodoxy itself is experiencing much of a rebirth either, even if they are more accepted in Russia than Catholicism.

As far as I understand Pope John Paul II has never said himself that he consecrated Russia, therefore I am not calling him a liar. In regards to your other points, people can look at this three part article as this is a large (and worthy) subject (not written by Fr. Gruner, by the way):

fatima.org/news/newsviews/062504frfox1.asp
 
ByzCath,

Yes, I agree that Fatima is not a part of the Deposit of Faith and it is not required for a Catholic to believe in it even if the Church has approved it as a genuine apparition. In fact, I don’t know of anyone associated with Fr. Gruner who would dispute that.
So you agree that we are not required to believe in this but then you say…
So I honestly don’t even understand the attitude of “it doesn’t really matter as it is not part of the Deposit of Faith and does not require belief by faithful Catholics.”
Which totally contradicts your first statement.
I mention the lack of conversions because the Blessed Virgin Mary said that if Russia were consecrated Russia would be converted. I think that means conversion to the Catholic faith.
Yet the Blessed Virgin did not say this. She said it would be converted.
As far as I understand Pope John Paul II has never said himself that he consecrated Russia, therefore I am not calling him a liar.
So then Pope John Paul II’s consecration of Russia is not good enough even though he did it? If one does an action must they say they did it for them to be a liar when you say that they did not do it?
In regards to your other points, people can look at this three part article as this is a large (and worthy) subject (not written by Fr. Gruner, by the way):
It may not be written by him but it is promoted by him.

I will stand by Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia rather than by a man who is a disgrace to the priesthood.
 
So you agree that we are not required to believe in this but then you say…

Which totally contradicts your first statement.
Yet the Blessed Virgin did not say this. She said it would be converted
So Byzcath when the Blessed Mother said Russia will be converted you don’t think that means to the Catholic Faith??
Do you think it means converted to Protestantism??
 
“Russia will spread her errors throughout the world raising up wars and persecutions against the Church, the good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated”
She is OBVIOUSLY speaking of the errors of communism. Let’s not forget that communism caused more death and destruction in the 20th century than all the other wars in history combined. In term’s of loss of life and the foundation of atheism, communism is the greatest evil in the history of the world. The rosary is the only thing that could stop this overwhelming evil…and it did.

When she said Russia would be converted, she could have meant away from the evil of communism. Also, she did not say that this “conversion” would occur in a particular timeframe.

It’s communism, we’re talking about.
 
So Byzcath when the Blessed Mother said Russia will be converted you don’t think that means to the Catholic Faith??
Do you think it means converted to Protestantism??
Orthodoxy is not protestantism in any way.
 
Orthodoxy is not protestantism in any way.
When Mary said Russia would be converted, you don’t think she meant converted to a heretical and schismatic Orthodox Church, do you?

The Orthodox are both heretical, as they deny Papal Infallibility and more, and also schismatic since they do not recognize the Primacy of the Pope, but only consider him “first among equals”. Since we know that all heretics and all schismatics will go to hell (infallible dogma), why would you possible think that the conversion Mary spoke of would be to a heretical and schismatic Church whose member will all (objectively speaking) go to hell?

Or do you deny that all heretics and all schismatics - every single oe with exception - will go to hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top