V
VitaminC
Guest
…
- Status
V
VitaminC
Guest
You’re not fooling anyone. Those books are full of inconvertible proof with all the evidence cited and verifiable.numealinesimpet:
…and none of them can be substantiated.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Newcomers to this topic are probably taken aback by the diametrically-opposed views being expressed here.
peary, nearly all your objections are answered in the Appendix to “The Devil’s final battle”. www.devilsfinalbattle.com/appendix.htm
All readers of this thread, please read this attentively.
peary, for the record I’ll try to answer all your objections, but time is limited. Sr Lucy repeatedly stated that she was under obedience not to comment on Fatima. Haven’t you read any of these primary sources? But I’m amazed you don’t know about the desk “Barbarigo”, of which actual photographs have been published. Please do read Sr Socci’s short book. He too had the beliefs you express. He is an investigative journalist, and he decided to refute the “Fatimists” (those who assert the consecration has not been done, etc) once and for all. But once he began to check the primary sources, he found to his surprise that they were telling the truth.
Just for a taster, here is an extract:
P
peary
Guest
Sorry. NOTHING you quote or say or maintain is going to change my mind. Why? Because I have been involved in the Apostolate since the early 1960s, and I KNOW what you are quoting looks good on paper (and in a book) but hardly is the reality. This conversation is closed. You won’t change your mind and I will not change mine, but I am on more solid ground than you think. God bless you.
H
Hereswith
Guest
Of course it is relevant, as long as its story and truth still moves people!
I converted to Catholicism (frrom Protestantism) nearly 20 years ago. During that summer, many elements in my life converged to lead me to the Catholic Church - something I still believe was a special grace in my life. One of those elements was a book I stumbled upon in a local library - about the mystery at Fatima. It was written by two Jewish journalists who had gone to Fatima as skeptics, ended up meeting Lucia, and left believers. It was fascinating to me, because my background did not speak a lot about miracles or the mystical side of faith.
So for me, little details such as whether or not the third or fouth prophecy is fulfulled, whether Russia is yet consecrated, is beside the point of your question. The answer is that there are still people out there who have yet to hear the story and will yet be moved to act by it. I was moved to leave the faith of my childhood, and begin the long journey toward becoming a full member of the Catholic Church.
I converted to Catholicism (frrom Protestantism) nearly 20 years ago. During that summer, many elements in my life converged to lead me to the Catholic Church - something I still believe was a special grace in my life. One of those elements was a book I stumbled upon in a local library - about the mystery at Fatima. It was written by two Jewish journalists who had gone to Fatima as skeptics, ended up meeting Lucia, and left believers. It was fascinating to me, because my background did not speak a lot about miracles or the mystical side of faith.
So for me, little details such as whether or not the third or fouth prophecy is fulfulled, whether Russia is yet consecrated, is beside the point of your question. The answer is that there are still people out there who have yet to hear the story and will yet be moved to act by it. I was moved to leave the faith of my childhood, and begin the long journey toward becoming a full member of the Catholic Church.
B
Bob_Crowley
Guest
What’s been overlooked here is the resurgence of Islam. The following link to Bishop Fulton Sheen’s article on Fatima, “Mary and the Moslems”, follows -
thefreelibrary.com/Mary+and+the+Muslims-a0154756251
At this point in time, I think Islam is a far greater threat to the Catholic Church than Russia, and as far as I’m concerned Russia has been consecrated to Mary. But we have to recognise that God will not override His own decision to give us free will. Russians, including ex-Communists, are still free to reject Christ.
They’ve had three generations of formal atheism in their experience, and the generation which saw the wall come down found itself confronted by a West which hardly believes in God itself.
I think it will take another major crisis before we see the full reality of that consecration.
thefreelibrary.com/Mary+and+the+Muslims-a0154756251
At this point in time, I think Islam is a far greater threat to the Catholic Church than Russia, and as far as I’m concerned Russia has been consecrated to Mary. But we have to recognise that God will not override His own decision to give us free will. Russians, including ex-Communists, are still free to reject Christ.
They’ve had three generations of formal atheism in their experience, and the generation which saw the wall come down found itself confronted by a West which hardly believes in God itself.
I think it will take another major crisis before we see the full reality of that consecration.
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
No, the REAL Sister Lucia didn’t say that because there were two Sister Lucia’s. The one after Vatican II was an imposter. If you look at pictures of her before and after Vatican II, the pictures of her don’t look alike. Plus, if Sister Lucia knew the real Third Secret, than clearly she wouldn’t say the Third Secret was about the assassination attempt against JPII. That was a false secret. And if you don’t agree with me on the two Lucia’s, I have an article I can post for proof.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
Good morning, peary. I am glad we are not going to fall out. That would be the kind of work the devil loves. Of course, he has done everything in his power to sideline Fatima. He has used his best tricks: red herrings of false apparitions to drown the Real Message of Fatima in mountains of rubbish; claims that “everything has already been done” and therefore can be forgotten; a gag of obedience on the witness whom God left here “a while longer” as Our Lady expressed it to the child Lucia dos Santos.
Well, so have I. I clearly remember the disappointment we all felt when it was announced in 1960 that the Third Secret would not be revealed after all. Note the significance, however, of the fact that the 1960 ‘message’ was from an anonymous “Vatican source”. To this day nobody will admit who wrote it. You will find out that several of the key communiques trying to bury Fatima are also anonymous. They would not stand up for five minutes in any honest investigation.
If you reject the existence of the 25 lines on a single sheet of paper, in the desk Barbarigo, then I cannot agree with that statement.
With the patience of other readers, I will continue to present some of the evidence. Thank you for your prayer, peary. Gurab amhlaidh duit – et cum spíritu tuo (which sounds very strained in English, but not in Irish or Latin).
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
No, I’m afraid I don’t believe that at all. Antonio Socci is a hard-headed and honest investigative journalist, who has done more than most to expose the truth about Fatima and point out the glaring inconsistencies in Cdl Bertone’s attempts to bury the message. He writes on p83 of The Fourth Secret: “… almost as if public opinion, the mass media, and the faithful do not know how to reason critically and to catch contradictions and elusive responses”. But he rejects the claim that there is a second, counterfeit Sr Lucia, just as he (and I) reject the claim that there was a second Pope Paul VI sneaked in (with alleged photographic evidence). These wild speculations go far beyond the evidence, are un-necessary (in Sr Lucia’s case, it was a simple question of her Vow of Obedience) and only serve to bring ridicule on the honest attempts to point out that the Vatican is putting up a smokescreen, for whatever motives.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
To those bemused by the conflicting versions of Fatima, I suggest, “By their fruits ye shall know them”.Hindu priests at the shrine performing their worship ceremonies ???I can’t stay and write more, but I am appalled.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
To review this exchange on this thread:–
It was Cdl Innocenti. Here is a summary of what happened:
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
On the gagging of Sr Lucia
The following is only one of many references that show Sr Lucia was under constraint; she could not speak about Fatima without express Vatican permission, and was not allowed to receive visitors except her close family.
The following is only one of many references that show Sr Lucia was under constraint; she could not speak about Fatima without express Vatican permission, and was not allowed to receive visitors except her close family.
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
**The Desk Barbarigo
salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-156/Third%20Secret%20Part%20III.htm
On July 5, 2006, a young journalist, Solideo Paolini, who was researching a book he intended to write on the Third Secret, was granted an interview by the then 92-year-old ‘Archbishop’ Loris Capovilla, a former personal secretary of John XXIII.* When Paolini informed him of the subject of his enquiry, Capovilla replied, “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said.”* Then smiling openly, he continued, “Even if I should know something else… I must limit myself to what is said in the official documents.* You write the questions and send them to me, and I will answer them.* I will search through my documents… and I will send you something I have, maybe a phrase.”* Capovilla smiled again when he spoke these last words.* Before Paolini left, Capovilla lectured him a little on the danger of mistaking fantasies for something supernatural.* Paolini had the impression that Capovilla did not believe everything Sr. Lucia had written in the Third Secret, that he considered some of it to be inauthentic or a product of her imagination.
*** Paolini promptly sent his list of questions, and on July 18 he received a package from Capovilla.* It contained Paolini’s list of questions with Capovilla’s handwritten answers, together with some other documents. * In answer to Paolini’s question about the existence of any unpublished portions of the Third Secret, Capovilla’s answer was: “Nulla so!” * This is a Sicilian phrase meaning “I can’t say!”* Italians use it jokingly, when they are making an obvious attempt to evade a question.* One of the included documents turned out to be the biggest single piece of evidence against the official interpretation, and for the existence of another text.* It was a “reserved note” by Capovilla, dated May 17, 1967, recording the precise circumstances surrounding Paul VI’s reading of the Third Secret, kept in the Papal apartment, on June 27, 1963.* Comparing the document with the Vatican’s official interpretation, Paolini realized that there were two huge discrepancies: Bertone had claimed that Paul VI did not read the Third Secret until March 27, 1965; he also claimed that the Third Secret was kept exclusively in the archives of the Holy Office.
*** Paolini telephoned Capovilla and asked about the dates.* Capovilla protested, “Ah, but I spoke the truth. Look, I am still lucid!”* Capovilla then apparently tried to brush aside the issue, but when Paolini insisted, he replied: “But I am right, because perhaps the Bertone envelope is not the same as the Capovilla envelope.”* A stunned Paolini then asked the clinching question: “Therefore, both dates are true, because there are two texts of the Third Secret?”* After a brief pause, Capovilla dropped the bomb: “Precisely so!”
*** Above is a photocopy of Capovilla’s “reserved note”; below is a translation.* Note that the Italian word plico can be translated as “envelope,” “package,” or even “file.”
*** Thursday the 27th of June 1963, I was on duty in the Anticamera in the Vatican.* Paul VI in the early morning received among others, Cardinal Fernando Cento (who had been Papal Nuncio to Portugal) and shortly afterwards the Bishop of Leiria Msgr. João Pereira Venancio.* Upon leaving, the Bishop asked for “a special blessing for Sister Lucia.”
*** It is evident that during the audience, they spoke about Fatima.* In fact in the afternoon the Substitute Msgr. Angelo Dell’Acqua telephoned me on Via Casilina (I was a temporary guest of the Sisters of the “Poverelle”):
*** “I am looking for the envelope of Fatima. * Do you know where it is kept?”
*** “It was in the drawer on the right hand side of the desk, named ‘Barbarigo,’ in the bedroom.”1
*** One hour later Dell’Acqua called me back: “Everything is okay.* The envelope has been found.”
*** Friday morning (28 June) between one meeting and another Paul VI asked me: “How come on the envelope there is your name?”
*** “John XXIII asked me to write a note regarding how the envelope arrived in his hands with the names of all those to whom he felt he should make it known.”
*** “Did he make any comment.”
*** “No, nothing except what I wrote on the outer cover: ‘I leave it to others to comment or decide’.”2
*** “Did he ever return to the subject?”
*** “No, never. However the devotion of Fatima remained alive in him.”
1 It is called thus because it belonged to St. Gregory Barbarigo. * John XXIII received it as a gift from Co. Gius. Dalla Torre (1960).
2 See the attached note of agenda of John XXIII, 10 November, 1959.
**
salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-156/Third%20Secret%20Part%20III.htm
On July 5, 2006, a young journalist, Solideo Paolini, who was researching a book he intended to write on the Third Secret, was granted an interview by the then 92-year-old ‘Archbishop’ Loris Capovilla, a former personal secretary of John XXIII.* When Paolini informed him of the subject of his enquiry, Capovilla replied, “No, look, also to avoid any imprecision, since it has been revealed officially, I will limit myself to what has been said.”* Then smiling openly, he continued, “Even if I should know something else… I must limit myself to what is said in the official documents.* You write the questions and send them to me, and I will answer them.* I will search through my documents… and I will send you something I have, maybe a phrase.”* Capovilla smiled again when he spoke these last words.* Before Paolini left, Capovilla lectured him a little on the danger of mistaking fantasies for something supernatural.* Paolini had the impression that Capovilla did not believe everything Sr. Lucia had written in the Third Secret, that he considered some of it to be inauthentic or a product of her imagination.
*** Paolini promptly sent his list of questions, and on July 18 he received a package from Capovilla.* It contained Paolini’s list of questions with Capovilla’s handwritten answers, together with some other documents. * In answer to Paolini’s question about the existence of any unpublished portions of the Third Secret, Capovilla’s answer was: “Nulla so!” * This is a Sicilian phrase meaning “I can’t say!”* Italians use it jokingly, when they are making an obvious attempt to evade a question.* One of the included documents turned out to be the biggest single piece of evidence against the official interpretation, and for the existence of another text.* It was a “reserved note” by Capovilla, dated May 17, 1967, recording the precise circumstances surrounding Paul VI’s reading of the Third Secret, kept in the Papal apartment, on June 27, 1963.* Comparing the document with the Vatican’s official interpretation, Paolini realized that there were two huge discrepancies: Bertone had claimed that Paul VI did not read the Third Secret until March 27, 1965; he also claimed that the Third Secret was kept exclusively in the archives of the Holy Office.
*** Paolini telephoned Capovilla and asked about the dates.* Capovilla protested, “Ah, but I spoke the truth. Look, I am still lucid!”* Capovilla then apparently tried to brush aside the issue, but when Paolini insisted, he replied: “But I am right, because perhaps the Bertone envelope is not the same as the Capovilla envelope.”* A stunned Paolini then asked the clinching question: “Therefore, both dates are true, because there are two texts of the Third Secret?”* After a brief pause, Capovilla dropped the bomb: “Precisely so!”
*** Above is a photocopy of Capovilla’s “reserved note”; below is a translation.* Note that the Italian word plico can be translated as “envelope,” “package,” or even “file.”
*** Thursday the 27th of June 1963, I was on duty in the Anticamera in the Vatican.* Paul VI in the early morning received among others, Cardinal Fernando Cento (who had been Papal Nuncio to Portugal) and shortly afterwards the Bishop of Leiria Msgr. João Pereira Venancio.* Upon leaving, the Bishop asked for “a special blessing for Sister Lucia.”
*** It is evident that during the audience, they spoke about Fatima.* In fact in the afternoon the Substitute Msgr. Angelo Dell’Acqua telephoned me on Via Casilina (I was a temporary guest of the Sisters of the “Poverelle”):
*** “I am looking for the envelope of Fatima. * Do you know where it is kept?”
*** “It was in the drawer on the right hand side of the desk, named ‘Barbarigo,’ in the bedroom.”1
*** One hour later Dell’Acqua called me back: “Everything is okay.* The envelope has been found.”
*** Friday morning (28 June) between one meeting and another Paul VI asked me: “How come on the envelope there is your name?”
*** “John XXIII asked me to write a note regarding how the envelope arrived in his hands with the names of all those to whom he felt he should make it known.”
*** “Did he make any comment.”
*** “No, nothing except what I wrote on the outer cover: ‘I leave it to others to comment or decide’.”2
*** “Did he ever return to the subject?”
*** “No, never. However the devotion of Fatima remained alive in him.”
1 It is called thus because it belonged to St. Gregory Barbarigo. * John XXIII received it as a gift from Co. Gius. Dalla Torre (1960).
2 See the attached note of agenda of John XXIII, 10 November, 1959.
**
D
Dempsey1919
Guest
I think the evidence shows that the Vatican, for unknown reasons, has decided to keep part of the Third Secret hidden under lock and key. I think the official Vatican interpretation of Fatima contains some truth, but is ultimately designed to end speculation and discussion of the Fatima message; the Third Secret contains something they want to hide.
Certain people try to discredit this alternative view of Fatima by claiming that there is an official version. To this I would respond: there was a time when ecclesiastical authorities denounced St. Padre Pio as a diabolical liar and charlatan. The Church is not always right about things like this; they were wrong about Padre Pio and they could be wrong about Fatima. Only time will tell who is telling the truth about Fatima.
Certain people try to discredit this alternative view of Fatima by claiming that there is an official version. To this I would respond: there was a time when ecclesiastical authorities denounced St. Padre Pio as a diabolical liar and charlatan. The Church is not always right about things like this; they were wrong about Padre Pio and they could be wrong about Fatima. Only time will tell who is telling the truth about Fatima.
H
Hereswith
Guest
I have to agree with BobCrowley that Islam is a great threat to Catholicism at present. I cringe everytime I hear a priest or bishop downplay the threat and the aggressive nature of Islamic philosophy, in the name of political correctness. Thank goodness the Pope refuses to do that.
KathleenGee - I always think of you as Kathleen MacGee btw, just my Irish blood, :yup: - I was really fascinated by this. Do you have any more info on that article? The elements of Marxism you list sure do ring true at present. Creepy, huh?
S
SpiritusSanctus
Guest
Have you seen a side-by-side comparison of Lucia before and after Vatican II? They look nothing alike.
L
Lamafacaja
Guest
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=776&pictureid=5996
They were some serious little people. Seeing hell and hearing the third secret’ll do that to you I 'spose.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=776&pictureid=5997
They were some serious little people. Seeing hell and hearing the third secret’ll do that to you I 'spose.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=776&pictureid=5997
N
numealinesimpet
Guest
That in itself is against the “imposter” thesis. If they had really replaced her with a double, they’d’ve picked somebody who resembled her very closely.
M
momor
Guest
Regarding the “gagging” of Sr. Lucia. Are you sure this wasn’t done by her Mother Superior? In the writings or story of St. Bernadette it indicates that she was rather marginalized by her own order to protect her humility. It would be very easy for a seer to become a celebrity and possibly sin seriously in the process. I can see this being the case for Sr. Lucia only being allowed to speak to certain priests. Regarding family visitors only, many orders of nuns didn’t allow visitors except for close family on rare occasions. While the statement may be true, it doesn’t necessarily mean anything funny is going on.
So much of what you have listed from the book can be construed in a different manner to mean something entirely different than the spin being put on it. Do you think the Blessed Mother would allow clergy to hide what she wanted known and lie about it? I find it hard to believe.
T
thomas_jd
Guest
I don’t agree with anything you post. TWO SISTER LUCIA’S !!
- Status