Is Our Lady of Fatima Still Relevant?

[Hereswith]

I agree with you. I guess I have always read the Fatima message not as a demand to convert Russia to the Catholic Church - so limited in vision and ethnocentric. Mary is the mother of all of us, even those who are not Catholic! She was asking - in my opinion - for prayers for the people of Russia to turn back to Christ’s church - in whatever form that should take. As long as Russians are finally able to freely worship the Son of God and live Christian lives, that is all that matters.

Again, so many people caught up in tiny details and missing the message for the trees. *

 

[Timothysis]

On the contrary, Cdl Capovilla (who is still alive) confirmed that both John XXIII and Paul VI read the 25-line letter that is kept in the papal bedchamber, in the desk “Barbarigo” –*not to mention the 4-page account of the vision that was released in 2000. There is no doubt that there are two different documents, and that only one has been released.
You will find full documentation, with dates, in ‘the Devil’s Final Battle’ and ‘the Fourth Secret’ (see previous link).

This is the same author who wrote “” The Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism" and has prepared a vastly updated edition of the book entitled *“The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy” * and the product description of the Devil’s Final Battle is "Fr Kramer’s expose of the “great crime…committed against the Catholic Church and the world at large” by the refusal to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart OF Mary while knowingly and willfully supressing the Third Secret of Fatima is grimly methodical. Fr Kramer cast his book in the form of a legal indictment outlinging the crime, the evidence for the crime,naming the suspected perpetrators of the crime, their motives, their defense of their actions, and the devastating consequences that have already resulted from their crime and will continue to intensify until the crime is undone."

Sister Lucia (despite what the conspiracy theorists maintain) said that the consecration was done and accepted by heaven. This reviewer from Amazon basically sums up the book: "This book is about a dramatic conspiracy theory which surrounds the Vatican and the Third Secret of Fatima. It brings forth a lot of evidences to support the following aspects to the theory: 1. The miracle of Fatima was authentic 2. The Third Secret prophecied apostasy in the Church 3. The Church is in apostasy now, resulting from a long-planned infiltration by freemasons and communists 4. The Church has distorted the true meaning of Fatima via a Party Line interpretation of its messages 5. The Church has covered-up the true Third Secret in the past and continues to do so in various ways and 6. The proof of all of this is clear by the state of our current world, 9/11 being clear evidence of the failure of the Vatican to heed the messages of Fatima."

If we cannot trust our spiritual fathers then who can we trust?

 

[Hope3]

You get the idea that some people think the ‘errors of Russia’ was Communism. But isn’t it more likely that when our Lady said: “she (Russia) will spread her errors throughout the world,” she was speaking on atheism? That is the fastest growing ‘religion’ in Eastern and Western Europe today. I find it hard to believe she was speaking in terms of economics. If she was speaking of the abandonment of the Faith, it makes more sense of the annihilation of nations.
Immorality is rampant in Russia, including a divorce rate that equals that of the United States. In 1998, 14 years after the 1984 consecration of the world, the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress stated that Russia had the highest abortion rate in the world — 3.5 million abortions in Russia every year.
And I think it is important to put the statements of Russia ‘spreading her errors’ and annihilation together. What has Russia spread that would cause annihilation, or the disappearance of nations? Certainly the most obvious cause of the “annhiliation of nations” has been through abortion and contraceptives. Those two factors alone have changed the face of the Western world.

Good food for thought.

Perhaps this conversion will not happen until enough rosaries are said by the faithful. Perhaps this will not happen until the time of the prophesied World War (in which both good and evil persons are killed) and by which God gives the victory to the Great Catholic Monarch and it is this victory that results in the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This triumph of the Church and the Immaculate Heart of Mary would then take place after the Three Days of Darkness (which will happen immediately after the war and in these three dark days God will purge the remaining evil persons from the earth) and thereby peace and love for God and His Church will flourish in this heresy-free time period.

This Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart will be when the Great Monarch is ruling and this will all happen shortly before the advent of the Antichrist. Perhaps the time of the Great Monarch is mentioned in Revelation/Apocalypse, Chapter 6:1-3 (the First Seal) and the time of the Antichrist begins at Revelation 6:4 (the Second Seal) and ends with the Fifth Seal since Jesus returns at the time of the Sixth Seal.

 

[VitaminC]

Here is the third “secret” of Fatima:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend and the story of Pope Pius XII nothing more than a fable. It wasn’t until 1957 that the “secret” was transported to Rome for safety. It wasn’t until 1965 that Pope Paul VI read the secret, the first pope to do so.

Read the article and the commentary; it is very enlightening.

Actually, everything you say is incorrect. The Third Secret was opened and read in 1959 by Pope John XXIII. And there is overwhelming evidence that the real Third Secret has never been released. All they’ve released so far is a supplementary vision meant to accompany the Third Secret. This supplementary vision was written on four sheets of paper and sixty some lines. Cardinal Ottaviani explicitly stated the Third Secret itself was written on a single sheet of paper of 25 lines, and that is multiply corroborated by other sources:

The version of the 3rd Secret released by the Vatican in 2000 was hand-written on four sheets of paper.[sup]1][/sup]

Cardinal Ottaviani in a press conference said the Secret was written on a single sheet of paper of 25 lines.[sup]2][/sup] Fr. Martin, who read it in 1960, also said it was written on a single sheet of paper.[sup]3][/sup] Bishop Venancio also stated it was written on a single sheet of paper, and even gave the size of the margins.[sup]4][/sup] The official Fatima archivist for the Vatican said that Sr. Lucia also said it was written on a single piece of paper.[sup]2][/sup]

In addition, the four-page vision released by the Vatican was not in the form of a letter and there’s proof that the Third Secret was written in the form of a letter. For example, Sr. Lucia was interviewed by Fr. Jongen in 1946 and told him that she “communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria.”[sup]5][/sup] Fr. Malachi Martin also said it was written in the form of a letter.[sup]6][/sup] Canon Galamba, Bishop of Leiria, also said it was written in the form of a letter.[sup]5][/sup] And on top of all that, the Vatican’s own press release from 1960 said it was written in the form of a letter. The press release read as follows: “… it is most likely that the letter will never be opened, in which Sister Lucy wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret to the three shepherds of the Cova da Iria.”[sup]7][/sup]

And that’s just the beginning. All I’ve discussed in this posting is the format, I haven’t even gotten to the proof as to its contents.

References:
[1] See scanned pages of Third Secret at Vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
[2] The Devil’s Final Battle, Chapter 4, citing Alonso, Father Joaquin (1976). La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima. Spain. p. 60. See also: Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990), The Whole Truth About Fatima - Vol. III, p. 725.
[3] Father Malachi Martin on Coast to Coast AM, with interviewer Art Bell. July 13, 1998.
Also see: Doran, Brian (11 August 2000), Malachi Martin: God’s Messenger – In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, Audio Cassette.
[4] Frère François de Marie des Anges (1994). Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph. New York, U.S.A… p. 45. Also see: Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990), The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III. Buffalo, New York, U.S.A… p. 481.
[5] Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990). *The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III, * p. 470.
[6] Doran, Brian (11 August 2000), Malachi Martin: God’s Messenger – In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, Audio Cassette.
[7] Kramer, Father Paul. The Devil’s Final Battle (1st Edition). p. 30

 

[Timothysis]

Actually, everything you say is incorrect. The Third Secret was opened and read in 1959 by Pope John XXIII. And there is overwhelming evidence that the real Third Secret has never been released. All they’ve released so far is a supplementary vision meant to accompany the Third Secret. This supplementary vision was written on four sheets of paper and sixty some lines. Cardinal Ottaviani explicitly stated the Third Secret itself was written on a single sheet of paper of 25 lines, and that is multiply corroborated by other sources:

The version of the 3rd Secret released by the Vatican in 2000 was hand-written on four sheets of paper.[sup]1][/sup]

Cardinal Ottaviani in a press conference said the Secret was written on a single sheet of paper of 25 lines.[sup]2][/sup] Fr. Martin, who read it in 1960, also said it was written on a single sheet of paper.[sup]3][/sup] Bishop Venancio also stated it was written on a single sheet of paper, and even gave the size of the margins.[sup]4][/sup] The official Fatima archivist for the Vatican said that Sr. Lucia also said it was written on a single piece of paper.[sup]2][/sup]

In addition, the four-page vision released by the Vatican was not in the form of a letter and there’s proof that the Third Secret was written in the form of a letter. For example, Sr. Lucia was interviewed by Fr. Jongen in 1946 and told him that she “communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria.”[sup]5][/sup] Fr. Malachi Martin also said it was written in the form of a letter.[sup]6][/sup] Canon Galamba, Bishop of Leiria, also said it was written in the form of a letter.[sup]5][/sup] And on top of all that, the Vatican’s own press release from 1960 said it was written in the form of a letter. The press release read as follows: “… it is most likely that the letter will never be opened, in which Sister Lucy wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret to the three shepherds of the Cova da Iria.”[sup]7][/sup]

And that’s just the beginning. All I’ve discussed in this posting is the format, I haven’t even gotten to the proof as to its contents.

References:
[1] See scanned pages of Third Secret at Vatican website: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
[2] The Devil’s Final Battle, Chapter 4, citing Alonso, Father Joaquin (1976). La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima. Spain. p. 60. See also: Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990), The Whole Truth About Fatima - Vol. III, p. 725.
[3] Father Malachi Martin on Coast to Coast AM, with interviewer Art Bell. July 13, 1998.
Also see: Doran, Brian (11 August 2000), Malachi Martin: God’s Messenger – In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, Audio Cassette.
[4] Frère François de Marie des Anges (1994). Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph. New York, U.S.A… p. 45. Also see: Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990), The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III. Buffalo, New York, U.S.A… p. 481.
[5] Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite (1990). *The Whole Truth About Fatima, Volume III, * p. 470.
[6] Doran, Brian (11 August 2000), Malachi Martin: God’s Messenger – In the Words of Those Who Knew Him Best, Audio Cassette.
[7] Kramer, Father Paul. The Devil’s Final Battle (1st Edition). p. 30

Sorry, but I don’t accept anything from The Devils Final Battle or Malachi Martin.

 

[VitaminC]

Sorry, but I don’t accept anything from The Devils Final Battle or Malachi Martin.

Most of those sources I listed came from neither of those. Apparently you accept no sources except one that conforms to your own lack of understanding and knowledge. You didn’t even know when this secret was opened and read, much less anything else. You said it was opened in 1965. If you don’t even know the most basic introductory facts, then why do you insist on arguing with people with advanced knowledge on the topic? I’ve spent years and hundreds of hours researching Fatima. And here I have someone arguing with me who doesn’t even know when it was open and read, much less anything else.

 

[numealinesimpet]

It is still private revelation. Public revelation closed with the death of the last Apostle.

I don’t think it’s the same thing (tho’ I’m open to hearing more) … Agreed: Revelation as such closed with the death of the last apostle, but there can be development of doctrine. As Cdl Newman said, there can be development of what is already there [implicitly] but not of what is not there – far less any ‘development’ that contradicts what has already been defined.
Where dies that leave S. Dominic & the Rosary, S. Margaret Mary & the first Fridays, s. Bernadette & The Immaculate Conception etc? Should we doubt these? Surely once they are incorporated into the Liturgy they are a part of the life of the Church. After all, they did not introduce new doctrine. They just gave new ways of living the Catholic spiritual (& practical) life. and Our Lady of Lourdes confirmed the definition of the Pope (tho’ little Bernadette did not know this – or even what the words meant).

And as to the other point: there has never, in the history of the world, been a more public miracle than the Miracle of the Sun – and predicted 3 months in advance, no less.

 

[numealinesimpet]

"Russia still needs to be converted. Pope JPII converted the world to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, but that’s not what the Blessed Mother asked for. She asked specifically that Russia be consecrated. "

How do you know this? Do you know more than the Fatima visionary, Sr. Lucia? She was asked if this consecration had been done and done properly, and she responded yes. I do not understand. Why is her answer not enough for most people? That is because we want things on our terms, our timing, not God’s.

No, it’s because Sr Lucia repeatedly stated that it was not done until the order came from the Vatican in 1988 that ‘everyone’ had to say it had been done. Even Pope Paul II did not believe that it had been done. Sr Lucia repeatedly explained why it had to be specifically Russia: as reparation for the Bolshevik Revolution, and because the whole world would notice the integral conversaion of that specific nation. Read more attentively, and you will see who is talking straight, and who is giving evasive answers.

N.B. I asked somebody last week for a link to the comment where Sr Lucia is supposed to have said the Consecration was done, and I am still waiting for it.

 

[thomas_jd]

I’m sorry, but this whole imposter discussion is so silly. When you (that’s a generic “you”, not pointing fingers!) get so wrapped up in details about what each message means or doesn’t mean, and whether Sr. Lucia lived to be 89 or 93 - you are missing the point. Which is that three illiterate rural children conversed with an apparition which they and many others believed to be the Virgin, and spoke about world issues they had no way of knowing about. Period. The miracle is that Mary was and is still with us!

I wanted to respond to this which someone posted (sorry not to give credit, it’s a long thread!):

**If I can find an article I saw showing you pictures of how the real and imposter Lucia looked, I will post it. Because in order for her to have looked the way she did during/after Vatican II, she would have needed plastic surgery and dental work. The most convincing clue that there were two Sister Lucias (aside from them not looking alike) is the fact that for a while Lucia was not allowed to be visited by anyone. Why would nobody be allowed to see her for a long period of time? If you think about it, you’ll eventually understand why…
**

First, you should look up an article Nat. Geographic did in the 1980s about nuns and how they age. They profiled a convent in Minnesota, and quite the big deal was made about how young the women looked for their ages.

Also, regarding Sr. Lucia - she was a cloistered nun in a very traditional society. As I understand it, she herself did not WANT to be seen. She wanted to be left alone to be a contemplative and devote her life to prayer. Everytime anyone saw her, permission had to be asked, and go through several channels, not because something sinister was going on, but because she was being protected from all the craziness by her own request! Many nuns of her generation, depending upon the order and house, spent their entire lifetimes of 60-80 years NEVER seeing anyone outside the convent!

You understand that this is a attack on the pope and his authority. It is the age old conflict of good verses evil. Note the utter lack of respect to our Lady’s message!!

 

[numealinesimpet]

I agree with you. I guess I have always read the Fatima message not as a demand to convert Russia to the Catholic Church - so limited in vision and ethnocentric. Mary is the mother of all of us, even those who are not Catholic! She was asking - in my opinion - for prayers for the people of Russia to turn back to Christ’s church - in whatever form that should take. As long as Russians are finally able to freely worship the Son of God and live Christian lives, that is all that matters.

Again, so many people caught up in tiny details and missing the message for the trees.

Before 1960, when Fatima was clamped down on because it completely contradicted “Good Pope John”'s alternative ideas (“Good Idea, Our Lady, but I’ve got a better one! Ostpolitik!”) Sr Lucia repeatedly insisted that what Our Lady asked for was precisely the Consecration of Russia, and that this did mean that this nation would convert to the Catholic Church, acknowledging the Successor of Peter as their head. There is nothing narrow in this, except for Our Lord’s injunction to “enter by the narrow gate”. I love the Russians for weathering the horrible persecution of the Bolsheviks, who truly made war on their own people. How much better for them when the stupid barriers are removed, and they Submit to Rome, as my own nation did 1600 years ago. S. Patrick’s last words are said to have been, “As ye are Christian, be ye also Roman”. This is inscribed over the Sanctuary of the chapel on top of Croagh Patrick, his Holy Mountain, where he spent the Lent of 441 AD striving with the demons and interceding for the nation of Ireland. (Sorry, but I can’t remember the original Latin… but I’ve seen it many times before my knees refused to take me up there any more)…

 

[numealinesimpet]

It wasn’t until 1957 that the “secret” was transported to Rome*** for safety. ***

It was*** for burial.*** Sadly, the bishop of Leiria had not the heroic virtue to open it before he complied with the demand from the Vatican, even though he guessed what would eventuate – its suppression. There was a new Pope in Rome, who was known for his Liberal tendencies. Cdl Bertoni showed the actual envelopes (of both documents!) on live TV in 2007. In Sr Lucia’s handwriting they stipulate that they are “by express order of Our Lady” to be opened by the Bishop of Leiria in 1960, or at her death – not by officials in the Vatican!

 

[Victorious]

I don’t think it’s the same thing (tho’ I’m open to hearing more) … Agreed: Revelation as such closed with the death of the last apostle, but there can be development of doctrine. As Cdl Newman said, there can be development of what is already there [implicitly] but not of what is not there – far less any ‘development’ that contradicts what has already been defined.
Where dies that leave S. Dominic & the Rosary, S. Margaret Mary & the first Fridays, s. Bernadette & The Immaculate Conception etc? Should we doubt these? Surely once they are incorporated into the Liturgy they are a part of the life of the Church. After all, they did not introduce new doctrine. They just gave new ways of living the Catholic spiritual (& practical) life. and Our Lady of Lourdes confirmed the definition of the Pope (tho’ little Bernadette did not know this – or even what the words meant).

And as to the other point: there has never, in the history of the world, been a more public miracle than the Miracle of the Sun – and predicted 3 months in advance, no less.

“Public revelation” and “private revelation” are terms of art and have nothing to do with how many people know about something, or how many people witnessed a miracle, or whether it’s impossible not to believe that a miracle took place. Public revelation is the deposit of faith, the contents of which every Christian is obliged to believe. Private relevations do not belong to the deposit of faith.

But you don’t need to take my word for it:

“The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

CCC at 66-67 (emphasis added).

 

[numealinesimpet]

This is the same author who wrote “” The Theological Vindication of Roman Catholic Traditionalism" and has prepared a vastly updated edition of the book entitled *“The Suicide of Altering the Faith in the Liturgy” * and the product description of the Devil’s Final Battle is “Fr Kramer’s expose of the "great crime…committed against the Catholic Church and the world at large” by the refusal to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart OF Mary while knowingly and willfully supressing the Third Secret of Fatima is grimly methodical. Fr Kramer cast his book in the form of a legal indictment outlinging the crime, the evidence for the crime,naming the suspected perpetrators of the crime, their motives, their defense of their actions, and the devastating consequences that have already resulted from their crime and will continue to intensify until the crime is undone."

Sister Lucia (despite what the conspiracy theorists maintain) said that the consecration was done and accepted by heaven. This reviewer from Amazon basically sums up the book: "This book is about a dramatic conspiracy theory which surrounds the Vatican and the Third Secret of Fatima. It brings forth a lot of evidences to support the following aspects to the theory: 1. The miracle of Fatima was authentic 2. The Third Secret prophecied apostasy in the Church 3. The Church is in apostasy now, resulting from a long-planned infiltration by freemasons and communists 4. The Church has distorted the true meaning of Fatima via a Party Line interpretation of its messages 5. The Church has covered-up the true Third Secret in the past and continues to do so in various ways and 6. The proof of all of this is clear by the state of our current world, 9/11 being clear evidence of the failure of the Vatican to heed the messages of Fatima."

Fr Kramer gives precise references for every one of his statements. Antonio Socci disagrees with the tone of Fr Kramer, but he quotes from his sources very extensively. He is too honest to dismiss him out of hand. He has looked at the hard evidence.

If we cannot trust our spiritual fathers then who can we trust?

Look at the primary documents, not at the spin, as Antonio Socci did. He too accepted “the Party Line” on Fatima, and actually started out with the intention of writing, as a famous journalist (in Italy) ‘the’ definitive refutation of what they call ‘The Fatimists’ (Those who insist the story is not over). But, examining the hard evidence, he realised that they were right. He tried to discuss this with Cdl Bertone, with whom he had had good relations over the years. He was very surprised to get, first a brush-off, then a personal denunciation (without, however, answering a single one of his questions) and finally, a roughing-up by Bertone’s ‘Goons’ (I quote the Italian press). Even now, Socci does not attribute malicious intent. He is willing to believe they have what they see as good motives. But his response, published in the press, speaks for itself: “Which of us is telling deliberate lies?”
Do wake up,** Tim.**

 

[numealinesimpet]

Sorry, can you be a little clearer? The total population of the island of Ireland is under 5 million. 96% of those in the Republic are nominal Roman Catholics. 45% in the Six counties under John Bull state the same.

I’d just love to hear you explaining to the Russians how much better it will be for them to submit to Rome. I can just see them standing there looking a bit bemused. Orthodox Russians who know a little bit about their own Churches will point out to you that Moscow has often been seen as the third Rome, especially once Constantinople fell.

But I have no intention of doing that. I will continue to pray the Rosary in obedience to Our Lady of Fatima, and she has promised that the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic Church will follow the Collegial Consecration.

 

[numealinesimpet]

To repeat, the tactic you mention has always been counter-productive.
It is good Catholic theology that each and every conversion is, properly considered, a miracle.
As you know, there have been three occasions in history when the Russian hierarchy were willing to ‘submit to Rome’ but the vast majority of the laypeople would not countenance it. What we are talking about is an actual miraculous conversion that is clearly and publicly related to the Collegial Consecration. We are not, repeat not, talking about accomplishing this in any other way.

 

[numealinesimpet]

…If we cannot trust our spiritual fathers then who can we trust?

Let’s give a concrete example. After Antonio Socci published the irrefutable evidence that there is another document, in Sr Lucia’s own handwriting, that contains an unpublished part of the Third Secret, Cdl Bertone rushed into print with a privately-financed book attacking the person and integirity of Socci, but without answering a single one of his claims. Socci, in his reply, stated that he is a Catholic before being a journalist, and would have welcomed a referenced rebuttal – or even being ignored. But he is astonished that Cdl Bertone should expose himself by making so many statements that actually destroy his own credibility.
Socci writes:

Bertone informs us that “Sister Lucy never used a computer”. It’s a valuable piece of information, because in an interview to Repubblica dated February 17, 2005, he had declared that** Lucy “used, in the end, even the computer”. ** At the time, it had the purpose of giving credence to certain letters by Sr Lucy dated 1989, which were not written in her own hand and which contradicted what she had previously declared about the Consecration of Russia".

Socci’s article is entitled “Dear Cardinal Bertone, who between you and me is deliberately lying?”

 

[Hope3]

From Cdl. Ratzinger:

“And so we come to the final question: What is the meaning of the “secret” of Fatima as a whole (in its three parts)? What does it say to us? First of all we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: “… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past”. Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the “secret”: the exhortation to prayer as the path of “salvation for souls” and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

 

[momor]

Before 1960, when Fatima was clamped down on because it completely contradicted “Good Pope John”'s alternative ideas (“Good Idea, Our Lady, but I’ve got a better one! Ostpolitik!”)

If you think Pope John was a bad character who knowingly defied Our Lady how do you explain his incorrupt body which is usually associated with saintliness?

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

Here is the third “secret” of Fatima:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

Also, the tale of Pope Leo XIII is nothing more than a pious Catholic urban legend and the story of Pope Pius XII nothing more than a fable. It wasn’t until 1957 that the “secret” was transported to Rome for safety. It wasn’t until 1965 that Pope Paul VI read the secret, the first pope to do so.

Read the article and the commentary; it is very enlightening.

That link didn’t work for me either, but of you’re saying it’s about Leo XIII then you’re wrong. The secret released in 2000 about JPII isn’t the real one either. Unless that’s the one you’re reffering to.

 

[irishcolleen45]

If you think Pope John was a bad character who knowingly defied Our Lady how do you explain his incorrupt body which is usually associated with saintliness?

I had never heard that John XXIII’s body is incorrupt. How do you know that? His coffin wasn’t sealed? Or has it been opened recently?