The Third Secret of Fatima *Was* Fully Revealed!

[VitaminC]

I should think Our Lady would be absolutely THRILLED to have the whole world - including Russia but also all its other countries - consecrated to her

Were you the one who received ongoing visitations from the Queen of Heaven? Sr. Lucia made it clear that this didn’t satisfy the Blessed Virgin’s request. And the reason why Russia wasn’t mentioned in the consecrations was not to give a bouquet in place of a flower, it was to avoid doing what they were asked to do because they didn’t want to be compliant and say the word “Russia” and consecrate it to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. They didn’t want to because rather than taking a tough stand against Russia and her grave errors, they instead were planning on, and eventually entered into agreements with their government to not interfere.

Uh huh. And that 97% don’t abort, don’t contracept, dont’ have premarital sex, don’t remarry without annulment from the Church, go to Mass every Sunday … didn’t think so. It’s called being Catholic in name only.

No, it’s called you attempting to save face by pretending that you had some clue to begin with. Who are you trying to fool, anyway?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

I should think Our Lady would be absolutely THRILLED to have the whole world - including Russia but also all its other countries - consecrated to her and wouldn’t look askance at it at all. Hey, if I asked you for a flower and you brought me instead a huge bouquet, that included the flower I asked for, I wouldn’t complain by any means …

You don’t think Heaven’s instructions should be followed to the letter? That is surprising.

One thing that nobody could deny (I have to chuckle as I type that!) is that Sr. Lucy WAS on record as stating several times that the consecration had NOT been done as requested, after the '84 event.

Consecrating the world vs. Russia are not the same thing because singling out Russia was the whole point. Our Lady said that it was Russia that would be the instrument of chastisement otherwise. If She wanted the world consecrated, would She have asked for that? If either way was valid, would Sr. Lucy have agreed - or, at least agreed decades before she’s alleged to have agreed?

I have to wonder if you guys taking the other side in this one really believe it or want to believe it.

And Sodano and Bertone aren’t eye witness Cardinals too? Aren’t renown Catholics too?

You spent some time above insinuating that Portugal is not really highly Catholic because of the rates of contraception and abortion there. You may have a point - I don’t actually know much (about the numbers).

Given that point of view of yours, do you consider someone who would meet with Gorbachev in the Vatican - one of the grand architects of the worldwide Culture of Death - a ‘renowned Catholic’? In what sense? What, if anything, did they do to earn that title? Would you like to hear the stories on how they opposed John Paul II?

Are people really so ill-informed and naive as to believe these things didn’t go on?

 

[Iowa_Mike]

I should think Our Lady would be absolutely THRILLED to have the whole world - including Russia but also all its other countries - consecrated to her and wouldn’t look askance at it at all. Hey, if I asked you for a flower and you brought me instead a huge bouquet, that included the flower I asked for, I wouldn’t complain by any means …

You miss the point…she didn’t ask for the world, she didn’t as for a flower, she specifically asked for Russia, by name, to be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart. It is you bearing the bouquet (world) instead of a single flower (Russia) not me.

NOT a valid extension of the analogy. The doctor did not by any means fail to treat the diseased foot, nor did he concentrate exclusively on some other limb. He just treated the rest of the body AS WELL AS the foot. Maybe cured other infections along the way by doing so - who’s going to have a problem with that? Perhaps other countries needed consecration too, so the Holy Spirit inspired JP2 to do it that way?

You evade the issue with this analogy. Mary’s request was specific, we have not complied. Go read what she specically asked for and stop speculating on what She should be satisfied with.

Uh huh. And that 97% don’t abort, don’t contracept, dont’ have premarital sex, don’t remarry without annulment from the Church, go to Mass every Sunday … didn’t think so. It’s called being Catholic in name only.

You are the one that said they aren’t any more Catholic than any other European country…now faced with the facts (easily verified on the Internet) you toss out another objection. The point is Our Lady specifically said, “In Portugal the Faith will always be preserved, etc.” Your asides do not change what She said…go read Her words for yourself.

Says who there is no improvement whatsoever? Tell me how many Catholics were there in Russia in 1980. (I mean Russia proper as opposed to former Soviet Union as a whole).

Once again you want to discuss side issues. Russia has not been consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart in accordance with Her specific request. Go read Her words for yourself. If you can show me where the Russia, by name, was consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, I’ll apologize. Until then you are in error.

Did she tell us exactly what this improvement would look like and when it would occur? Is the fall of godless Communism, great among the evils Our Lady was thinking of in Russia, which was on the verge of its Communist revolution in 1917, no improvement?

No She didn’t. She did say that Russia would be converted. Show me where there is any evidence what-so-ever that this is happening. The Soviet Union disinegrated but communism in Russia is alive and well.

My apologies, the US has twice been consecrated to the Mary Immaculate and not the Immaculate Heart. I know how desperately important such details are to you.

First time was by the US Bishops, November 20 1959, last occasion, also by the US Bishops, was November 11 2006.

First, your point is irrelevent and incorrect. Irrelevent because we are not discussing the US and incorrect because the Bishops have twice consecrated the US to the Immaculate Conception not her Immaculate Heart. The second time it was with special mention of the Immaculate and Sorrowful Heart of Mary.

And Sodano and Bertone aren’t eye witness Cardinals too? Aren’t renown Catholics too?

Sure they are. The difference here is I have read their remarks and compared them to the data presented by Socci/Ferrara/Kramer and believe they are not being truthful. You’ve not looked at the data so I don’t see how you can argue the data is wrong.

Lily, I believe you are a good and faithful Catholic but I don’t believe you have given my side of the argument a fair shake…Keep in mind that Antonio Socci, in collaboration with Bishop Bertone, went out to discredit the ‘Fatamists’. He was converted by his own investigation into a Fatamist…go figure!

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[LilyM]

You don’t think Heaven’s instructions should be followed to the letter? That is surprising.

It can’t be a surprise to you that I think that too much of a good thing is fine. If anything, the consecration of the entire world amounts precisely to more being done than is instructed.

Which is fine in most situations - if Mary told Lucia to go to Mass three times a week, why would she object if Lucia went every day instead? If she instructed her to go on bread and water for a day, why would she object if she ate nothing at all for that day instead?

One thing that nobody could deny (I have to chuckle as I type that!) is that Sr. Lucy WAS on record as stating several times that the consecration had NOT been done as requested, after the '84 event.

If media interviews are considered ‘on the record’, well, I’ve given you the benefit of my knowledge of the media. Most of the media’s ‘record’ isn’t worth the paper or tape it’s recorded on.

Consecrating the world vs. Russia are not the same thing because singling out Russia was the whole point. Our Lady said that it was Russia that would be the instrument of chastisement otherwise. If She wanted the world consecrated, would She have asked for that? If either way was valid, would Sr. Lucy have agreed - or, at least agreed decades before she’s alleged to have agreed?

Does Our Lord want us all to go to daily Mass? Of course, if we can. Has He ever specifically requested the laity to do so? No. Is He pleased with those of us who go beyond instructions out of love for Him? Of course.

Given that point of view of yours, do you consider someone who would meet with Gorbachev in the Vatican - one of the grand architects of the worldwide Culture of Death - a ‘renowned Catholic’? In what sense? What, if anything, did they do to earn that title? Would you like to hear the stories on how they opposed John Paul II?

Are people really so ill-informed and naive as to believe these things didn’t go on?

‘Renowned’ simply means well-known. Even Luther and Alexander VI can be called ‘renowned Catholics’, albeit bad and sinful ones. And if Sodano and Bertone have an agenda, what’s to say that Fr Malachi and the others who’ve called them liars don’t equally have one?

And are you so ill-informed that you don’t believe that writers with an agenda - even those promoting the idea that the consecration hasn’t been done - couldn’t make up interviews with Sr Lucia that never happened, or quotes that she never said? Are you so ill-informed that even if Sr Lucia said such things she couldn’t have been wrong as St Catherine of Siena was?

As an example - we have poor Fr Rutler misquoted - and he’s clarified this many times. Mother Teresa NEVER made the quote, supposedly reported by him about her, that she was saddened by Communion in the Hand. Yet the myth persists that she made that quote. Explain to me how such an error could be repeated wrongly, and wrongly believed to this day, as truth about her, and yet what I’ve said about Sr Lucia be impossible?

 

[LilyM]

Contrary to what some of you think, I’ve read a quantity of information - from both sides - about this issue during my years at CAF. What it really boils down to for me is one thing …

John Paul II had a devotion to Our Lady of Fatima that was second to none. He credited her with saving his life, in fact.

A man who feels that he owes a woman his life moves heaven and earth to do anything for her that she asks of him, and doesn’t rest until he’s as sure as he can be that he’s fulfilled her every wish.

John Paul II would NOT keep silence, for over 20 years, after the consecration, without even trying again for another one in all that time, unless he was sure that it was kosher.

He did meet with Sr Lucia several times, including in 2000 VERY shortly before the statement about the third secret was made.

No way would he miss that opportunity to clarify with her what was shortly to be said about it, no way would he miss the chance to make sure that he had done all within his power for Our Lady and that her messages were correctly being conveyed to the world.

No way, above all, would he be silent for five years AFTERWARDS if he had any doubts about the veracity of the statements - and he would only be satisfied if reassured by herself.

 

[VitaminC]

And are you so ill-informed that you don’t believe that writers with an agenda - even those promoting the idea that the consecration hasn’t been done - couldn’t make up interviews with Sr Lucia that never happened, or quotes that she never said?

You raise this as a possibility for which there is no substantiation. All of the evidence suggests foul play by those you support, not the other way around.

And now that you bring it up, there actually was a bogus interview. A man named Carlos Evaristo interviewed Sr. Lucia and then published a pamphlet about it wherein he claimed that Lucia gave assurances as to the consecration and even made a false claim about Gorbachev kneeling before the Pope. A priest who witnessed the interview made a formal statement that Evaristo lied in his nasty little pamphlet. Under pressure, Evaristo more or less admitted to it, saying the quotations of Lucia had been “reconstructed” and his “memory was bad.” And the thing was, this jerk somehow got special permission from Cassaroli to do this interview in the first place where so many others had been rejected. He just “messed up his assignment.”

Are you so ill-informed that even if Sr Lucia said such things she couldn’t have been wrong as St Catherine of Siena was?

That’s just you grasping at straws at this point.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

It can’t be a surprise to you that I think that too much of a good thing is fine. If anything, the consecration of the entire world amounts precisely to more being done than is instructed.

You must at least allow that that is nothing more than an interpretation! One that I find illogical on the face of it, after thinking it through.

Why didn’t Mary just ask for the consecration of the whole world long ago, then, instead of pieces at a time? Because each individual consecration has a specific purpose, perhaps?

How can you reasonably argue that there’s any good reason for not simply doing it just as was asked. And, if it wasn’t done just as was asked, even after several tries, doesn’t that tell you something?! It tells you it wasn’t easy to get it done as it was asked! Not easy because saying ‘the world’ offends nobody but saying ‘Russia’ offends a whole lot, and is quite un-ecumenical, indeed.

But at least we’re talking about some of the issue now!

If media interviews are considered ‘on the record’, well, I’ve given you the benefit of my knowledge of the media. Most of the media’s ‘record’ isn’t worth the paper or tape it’s recorded on.

I wasn’t referring to the MSM. Lucy’s been on record with a number of other clergy - did they all make it up? Did they all say that she claimed the consecration wasn’t done as requested - why?

Now, no offense, but if you were in possession of all the facts you would not dispute that at least at one time - after '84 - Lucy claimed the consecration had not been done validly.

Does Our Lord want us all to go to daily Mass? Of course, if we can. Has He ever specifically requested the laity to do so? No. Is He pleased with those of us who go beyond instructions out of love for Him? Of course.

Not a good analogy.

‘Renowned’ simply means well-known. Even Luther and Alexander VI can be called ‘renowned Catholics’, albeit bad and sinful ones. And if Sodano and Bertone have an agenda, what’s to say that Fr Malachi and the others who’ve called them liars don’t equally have one?

Well, everybody has a point-of-view. As I said, I prefer to keep Martin out of it, only because it muddies the waters. He’s not necessary, at all.

To throw up one’s hands and say ‘everybody has an agenda; I don’t know who’s telling the truth’ is to dodge every debated question that exists. One must look at the evidence and make up one’s mind.

And are you so ill-informed that you don’t believe that writers with an agenda - even those promoting the idea that the consecration hasn’t been done - couldn’t make up interviews with Sr Lucia that never happened, or quotes that she never said? Are you so ill-informed that even if Sr Lucia said such things she couldn’t have been wrong as St Catherine of Siena was?

I would not trust any interview that could have been ‘made up’ - I would not trust any interview that had been conducted by ANY of the parties directly involved in this dispute if it was not recorded!

But I am not putting any trust in any interview with Lucy by Ferrara, or Socci, or Gruner - those don’t exist. But Lucy did sit with others, decades ago, who recorded what she said and probably never even saw the fight coming, much less had a dog in it.

It is very sensible to trust sources such as those.

St. Catherine was not blessed with apparitions of the Virgin as was Lucy. No, I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the seer was wrong about one of the core tenets of the apparition. I think to suggest this would be to suggest that Heaven chose the wrong visionary which is not possible.

That’s (part of) how I see the Consecration thing. By the way, I changed my mind on this just in the last year, after believing the opposite for a long time.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Contrary to what some of you think, I’ve read a quantity of information - from both sides - about this issue during my years at CAF. What it really boils down to for me is one thing …

John Paul II had a devotion to Our Lady of Fatima that was second to none. He credited her with saving his life, in fact.

A man who feels that he owes a woman his life moves heaven and earth to do anything for her that she asks of him, and doesn’t rest until he’s as sure as he can be that he’s fulfilled her every wish.

John Paul II would NOT keep silence, for over 20 years, after the consecration, without even trying again for another one in all that time, unless he was sure that it was kosher.

He did meet with Sr Lucia several times, including in 2000 VERY shortly before the statement about the third secret was made.

No way would he miss that opportunity to clarify with her what was shortly to be said about it, no way would he miss the chance to make sure that he had done all within his power for Our Lady and that her messages were correctly being conveyed to the world.

No way, above all, would he be silent for five years AFTERWARDS if he had any doubts about the veracity of the statements - and he would only be satisfied if reassured by herself.

This is solid thinking. I think you’re right on - JPII would have done all in his power. I don’t think the consecration as intended was in his power - I think his political enemies wouldn’t let it be done that way. I think even if he’d gone right to the bishops there would have been a firestorm and it would have fallen apart.

Do you know what he was up against with the bishops? There were bishops all over the world defying his orders in all sorts of ways. I had one in my hometown doing it.

It’s also possible that the consecration was done but the Secret only partly officially revealed. That is possible. Me, I don’t think so because we have Lucy’s earlier (at least) protestations that it wasn’t, we have the fact that it wasn’t done as asked in important ways, and we have what Russia looks like now - it is really a moral cesspool, don’t you think?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Lily, I would like to thank you for participating in the discussion meaningfully and respectfully (and you’re even getting ganged-up on now!).

I would like to say a few more general words. I understand how this whole thing can strike someone as - trivializing, etc. - the whole faith in a sense. Turning it into a James Bond movie! Concentrating on details, not germane to the faith, on things perhaps ‘unknowable’! Making it about something other than the truly spiritual.

Sometimes - once in a while - the world, and the Church, really are a little mysterious.

God designed things that way, for some reason. Read the prophets, read the mystics, read the saints.

I really have to go to bed now. God Bless.

 

[LilyM]

How can you reasonably argue that there’s any good reason for not simply doing it just as was asked.

There’s at least one excellent reason – that reason being that the whole world, by the 1980s, NEEDED the benefit of consecration, as Russia’s errors had spread so greatly, whereas in 1917, possibly even in the 1960s (prior to abortion becoming legal in countries such as the US) only Russia needed it.

And, if it wasn’t done just as was asked, even after several tries, doesn’t that tell you something?! It tells you it wasn’t easy to get it done as it was asked!

Doesn’t the fact that JP2 tried twice in three years, such was his desire to achieve the consecration, and then for OVER TWENTY YEARS didn’t try again – not even once – not even for the lady who saved his life – tell you so much more?

Keep in mind this was a man who stood up to disobedient Lefebvrists on the ultra right and disobedient Liberation Theologists on the ultra left – and very decisively in both cases. He was no wimp by any means.

You’re telling me he wouldn’t even at least TRY again if he thought he hadn’t succeeded?

I wasn’t referring to the MSM. Lucy’s been on record with a number of other clergy - did they all make it up? Did they all say that she claimed the consecration wasn’t done as requested - why?

For the same reasons people claim that the moon landings were faked, that Elvis is still alive or that UFOs abducted them, or print all sorts of outright lies in the National Enquirer. Some are just plain crazy, others enjoy the notoriety of causing controversy, others hope to sell a few extra books or newspapers or what have you by saying something sensational, if untrue.

The main question to ask is cui bono? How did Sodano and Bertone benefit if they covered up? They suppressed allegations of corruption and diabolic influence within the church? But the messages of Akita suggest much the same things, and are every bit as ominous, yet they haven’t been suppressed at all.

But I am not putting any trust in any interview with Lucy by Ferrara, or Socci, or Gruner - those don’t exist. But Lucy did sit with others, decades ago, who recorded what she said and probably never even saw the fight coming, much less had a dog in it.

You mean the same people who claim that the third secret is about church corruption and Satan’s influence at the highest levels? Since when were such claims NOT going to cause a fight – and since when would people (Catholic, atheist and other) NOT have a dog in such a fight?

St. Catherine was not blessed with apparitions of the Virgin as was Lucy. No, I do not think it is reasonable to suggest that the seer was wrong about one of the core tenets of the apparition.

St Catherine most certainly DID have visions, and locutions, including the one supposedly from Our Lady that I’ve described, if not apparitions.

What is the real difference anyway? I wasn’t aware that supernatural messages were ranked in a hierarchy, with apparitions being at the top and visions and locutions being of lesser importance or something. People have false ‘apparitions’ all the time. And it’s no less likely that a person could mix real and false apparitions than it is that St Catherine could mix real and false visions and locutions.

I think to suggest this would be to suggest that Heaven chose the wrong visionary which is not possible.

No it isn’t – I’m not saying that any more than I’m suggesting that heaven chose the wrong recipient for the locutions and visions which St Catherine of Siena had. A percentage of them, surely, were real. Regardless, St Catherine on one occasion at least got it totally wrong. It simply means heaven chooses human beings, frail and fallible as even the holiest are.

You should read up on the apparitions of La Salette newadvent.org/cathen/09008b.htm – not only was one of the ‘secrets’ Our Lady confided there never published at all, but there was much controversy about the actual content of the other secret – and more importantly over whether that particular seer changed her story over the course of about 20 years. Very illuminating.

 

[Frosty]

FYI, participating in such a thing as thing is very, very stressful for me. I posted this thread knowing I’d be attacked - it is not pleasant. Why, then, do it? Because TRUTH IS TRUTH! Truth needs to be revealed even when it is not comfortable to all!

TRUTH! Sorry, I don’t understand your concept of truth at all. You and others on this thread would have us believe that that certain authors etc have more of an inside knowledge of the secrets of Fatima and in particular the third secret then the Vatican. Not to mention that those who dispute the Vatican’s stance on the secret have their own personal ideologies and yes, even in some cases, downright lunacies. Because their theories fit right in with your own convictions, they must be correct. Eh? I have read a few of the books you mentioned and taken them with a grain of salt. Interesting reads, but nothing more.
The statements that there were many people privy to the third secret is completely unfounded, especially the one by Vitamen C who said that Malachi Martin read it when it was opened in 1960. It was not opened in 1960. After it had been put in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, it was not opened until Pope John XXIII did so in 1959. It was then returned to the archives until Pope Paul VI read it in 1965. John Paul II didn’t even read it until after the assassination attempt in 1981. Peter Seewald asked Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 who could examine the secret. The Cardinal replied that only the Pope himself, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and others only with the personal approval of the Pope. Seewald then asked if the circle of people who had examined the secrets were known and easy to keep track of, The Cardinal replied that it was certainly easy to keep track of because there were probably no more than three or four people.
In the same interview, Seewald asked if the prophecy shook the Cardinal. “No” he answered. “Why not?” asked Seewald. “Because nowhere does it say anything more than what the Christian message already says”, replied Cardinal Ratzinger. He also said that he was not “overcome by any terrible shocks” in reading it. [Salt of the Earth]. Strange that he would repeat more or less the same words when the Third Secret was released four years later.

A careful reading of the text of the so-called third “secret” of Fatima, published here **in its entirety **long after the fact and by decision of the Holy Father, will probably prove disappointing or surprising after all the speculation it has stirred. No great mystery is revealed; nor is the future unveiled

The Cardinal himself stated that the third secret had been published in its entirety. That same man is now Pope Benedict XVI. To insist that that part of the secret was held back is to accuse the Pope of being a liar. There isn’t any way to pussyfoot around and pretend otherwise. It is bad enough to be calumnating Cardinal Bertone who was working directly under Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF but the Pope?
For anyone reading this thread who is interested in the official declaration of the Church about the secrets of Fatima, go to this link.

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

 

[pnewton]

That’s because he/they are engaging in sophistry. If he/they do respond to a piece of evidence, it’s a collateral attack or a twisting of your words and the words of anyone else who disputes the official 2000 release along with specious, subtly deceptive argumentation. Certain individuals do not even believe the arguments they are posting, but rather are posting them to aggravate their opponents, confuse new readers, and to prevent more people from seeing the truth.

Sophistry? Then how exactly do you describe your own post here? Or this one by the OP

You are confusing Church with churchman - simple as that.

It serves no purpose to hurl epitaths at those who disagree with you. No one posting her, you included is confused or do not believe what they are posting or are here just to aggrevate. Degrading each others motives, intelligence and sincerity serve no purpose. My reason to ignore all this Fatima hype was summarily dismissed as avoiding the evidence, but I consider it valid. I do not like anything that resembles of gnosticism and I see that here, even if the OP does not. I will concern myself in the Church only with that which is open and has been revealed. It is not revelation that I reject, but the hidden and conspiratorial.

To respond as to why I give little credence to this current line of reasoning:

A well-known and respected Italian journalist and television host, Antonio Socci, who was also an acquaintance of Cardinal Bertone

This comes from a journalist who the OP claims to be respected. He is selling a book and is aquainted with a Cardinal. I do not deem these credentials as carrying any authority. The following comments

The following comments were all made either by the seer herself or by people who had read the Third Secret or spoken to Lucia about it (all of them are reliably documented):

are in fact* not* documented in the least. How could I respond to any one of them. In fact, the last one does not even refer to Fatima at all, except

(Many believe the Pontiff was here revealing the Secret in a subtle manner.)

which is a classic logical fallacy of false authority. (How can we disagree with the vague “many”) Then we have begging the question when another reference is tied in:

the message is ‘essentially the same’ as the message of Our Lady of Fatima

For a respected journalist, a lot of dubious techniques are used to sway opinion.

Why?

The cynic in me says to sell he book. Perhaps he really believes what he says. I just know it does not convince me that there is legitimacy to the his argument.

 

[pnewton]

Oh, I almost forgot. I have answered this so many times I just skipped it. I do not think anyone is confusing Church and churchmen. I know I have been accused of that a lot and the accusation always misses the point. I know the difference between the human fallibility and that which is divine. Nonetheless, God chose to give authority to fallible human beings and we worship our Creator, in the this Church, under the authority of these men. Refusing to defy this authority is not chosing men over God, but rather chosing to obey God in the way he ordained. Refusing to even question this authority in this matter is a simple decision that it is not a critical area worthy of such an insubordinate act. I am not saying sometimes such questions are not necessary. They are. I just do not see that a spinoff of a private revelation is worth it.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Contrary to what some of you think, I’ve read a quantity of information - from both sides - about this issue during my years at CAF. What it really boils down to for me is one thing …

John Paul II had a devotion to Our Lady of Fatima that was second to none. He credited her with saving his life, in fact.

A man who feels that he owes a woman his life moves heaven and earth to do anything for her that she asks of him, and doesn’t rest until he’s as sure as he can be that he’s fulfilled her every wish.

John Paul II would NOT keep silence, for over 20 years, after the consecration, without even trying again for another one in all that time, unless he was sure that it was kosher.

He did meet with Sr Lucia several times, including in 2000 VERY shortly before the statement about the third secret was made.

No way would he miss that opportunity to clarify with her what was shortly to be said about it, no way would he miss the chance to make sure that he had done all within his power for Our Lady and that her messages were correctly being conveyed to the world.

No way, above all, would he be silent for five years AFTERWARDS if he had any doubts about the veracity of the statements - and he would only be satisfied if reassured by herself.

Lily,

Based on the your posts on this thread don’t believe for a minute you have read much on either side of the discussion.

You misstate the facts on both sides of the issue and spout them like they are solid truth e.g. You stated that the US was twice consecrated to Mary’s Immaculate Heart and then pointed to the US as not being converted. The US was twice consecrated all right but to Mary’s Immaculate Conception to protect not convert the US. In a subsequent post you mock me for being too detailed on this issue when it is you that is comparing apples and oranges arguing they are the same.

Since you do not know the facts on either side of the argument you are being corrected constantly by others on the thread who you then attack with sarcasm. For example, you first argued that Russia had been consecrated…when it was pointed out to you (by me) that the world had been consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart in spite of Her very specific request…you responded she should be satisfied after all Russia is in the world that last time you checked. Unfortunately Mary asked for something specific, didn’t get it and you have thus decided she should be satisfied and mock those that don’t agree. I don’t accept that you are in any position to decide what Mary should be satisfied with.

Any fact or question asked of or presented to you that you can’t answer is ignored. I asked you and a couple of others on this forum if they have read “The Secret Still Hidden” and “The Devil’s Final Battle”. You didn’t respond and it is clear from your answers that you have not.

I gave you a quote made by then Cardinal Ratzinger about the Third Secret and asked you the meaning. You didn’t respond and I think it’s because you have no idea.

These are but two of numerous examples.

It is impossible to have a discussion when some only want to argue and whose arguments are not based upon the facts but on emotion and obstinance.

In short as Saint Augustine said, “The argument is at an end”. When you want to have a discussion, arm yourselves with the facts so we can have an enjoyable - two way - fact based - Christian diiscussion. Otherwise this is a huge waste of time.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Oh, I almost forgot. I have answered this so many times I just skipped it. I do not think anyone is confusing Church and churchmen. I know I have been accused of that a lot and the accusation always misses the point. I know the difference between the human fallibility and that which is divine. Nonetheless, God chose to give authority to fallible human beings and we worship our Creator, in the this Church, under the authority of these men. Refusing to defy this authority is not chosing men over God, but rather chosing to obey God in the way he ordained. Refusing to even question this authority in this matter is a simple decision that it is not a critical area worthy of such an insubordinate act. I am not saying sometimes such questions are not necessary. They are. I just do not see that a spinoff of a private revelation is worth it.

PNewton, I would have to argue that you in fact do not have a clear understanding of Church authority, of Church vs. churchman. By the standard you apply here - that a Vatican press release put forth by the Secretary of State must be accepted lest obedience be flouted - I think you would quickly find yourself in some impossible contradictions were you to look at any number of incidents and situations in Church history.

We could start with Paul, chastising Peter publicly for his policy on the gentiles - who’s side would you have taken in that one? Was Paul disobedient to the Church?

How about Pope Honorius? Heard of him? The Catholic Encyclopedia has this to say:

“His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680).”

Was the Pope a heretic or was the council wrong? (Geez, even I don’t like to go near this one - makes me stomach wooly!)

If you’d have lived during the (very long!) period when the Arian heresy flourished, the chances are somewhere between 7 and 9 in 10 that your priest and/or bishop would have taught it - they would have taught that Christ was a created being! And who would you have believed - the Church, or the churchmen?

I can quote our forum father Karl Keating on this one, from Fundamentalism and Catholicism, speaking of the Protestant view of papal infallibility: “They do not know what ‘infallibility’ means. Most of them hear ‘infallibility’ and hear ‘impeccability’.”

I think you also mistake infallibility for ‘impeccability’, no? How else to explain your insistence that an individual cardinal can’t fib? The press release was not ‘official’ in any sense and most certainly not binding. It had nothing to do with any doctrine, dogma, or morals, and it was not put forth with papal authority or the authority of the Magisterium!

I’d love to be able to buy the line on this one. And I did, for a long time. But I learned the facts and reason prevailed - reason & faith are never opposed.

Could you speak to these things before persisting in insisting that anyone who doesn’t stick to the simplistic (but illogical) view is disobedient?

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

TRUTH! Sorry, I don’t understand your concept of truth at all. You and others on this thread would have us believe that that certain authors etc have more of an inside knowledge of the secrets of Fatima and in particular the third secret then the Vatican. Not to mention that those who dispute the Vatican’s stance on the secret have their own personal ideologies and yes, even in some cases, downright lunacies. Because their theories fit right in with your own convictions, they must be correct. Eh? I have read a few of the books you mentioned and taken them with a grain of salt. Interesting reads, but nothing more.
The statements that there were many people privy to the third secret is completely unfounded, especially the one by Vitamen C who said that Malachi Martin read it when it was opened in 1960. It was not opened in 1960. After it had been put in the Secret Archives of the Vatican, it was not opened until Pope John XXIII did so in 1959. It was then returned to the archives until Pope Paul VI read it in 1965. John Paul II didn’t even read it until after the assassination attempt in 1981. Peter Seewald asked Cardinal Ratzinger in 1996 who could examine the secret. The Cardinal replied that only the Pope himself, the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and others only with the personal approval of the Pope. Seewald then asked if the circle of people who had examined the secrets were known and easy to keep track of, The Cardinal replied that it was certainly easy to keep track of because there were probably no more than three or four people.
In the same interview, Seewald asked if the prophecy shook the Cardinal. “No” he answered. “Why not?” asked Seewald. “Because nowhere does it say anything more than what the Christian message already says”, replied Cardinal Ratzinger. He also said that he was not “overcome by any terrible shocks” in reading it. [Salt of the Earth]. Strange that he would repeat more or less the same words when the Third Secret was released four years later.

The Cardinal himself stated that the third secret had been published in its entirety. That same man is now Pope Benedict XVI. To insist that that part of the secret was held back is to accuse the Pope of being a liar. There isn’t any way to pussyfoot around and pretend otherwise. It is bad enough to be calumnating Cardinal Bertone who was working directly under Cardinal Ratzinger at the CDF but the Pope?
For anyone reading this thread who is interested in the official declaration of the Church about the secrets of Fatima, go to this link.

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

Yes, thank you for the rant. We do know the ‘public’ story and the story of the other part of the secret - the part that was in the Vatican archives. I didn’t give any of the details of the letter in the papal apartments in this thread, but the whole point is that there is another part of the secret in the apartments as many Church figures have testified to.

I seriously doubt you’ve read either Socci’s or Ferrara’s book as you claim.

When Ratzinger made the statement you link to he was not the pope and thus NOT privy to the part of the secret in the papal apartments. I do not think he lied - I think he didn’t know - but if you think a pope cannot lie you do not understand Catholic authority or the doctrines of the infallibility of the Magisterium and the supreme pontiff and you should read the reply just sent to PNewton.

If Socci’s book directly accuses the Pope of lying, why did our holy father send him a letter thanking him for it?! Did you read enough of the material here to see that?

As for the ‘lunacies’ of those who believe not everything was given - care to elaborate? And would that include Mother Angelica? (Why is it people have no problem bashing some yet will conveniently ignore for 1,000 years the fact that Mother Angelica not only expressed her belief that the secret was not fully revealed, but chose to do it on TV in front of tens of millions?)

The other side of coin might be this:

Those who harp about ‘obeying Church authority’ on this issue strangely have no problem supporting those would flouted it so often and so consistently on so many other, much more important issues! Pope John Paul II’s orders in the 70s regarding Communion in the Hand (and other liturgical matters) were blatantly and intentionally ignored by bishops in the U.S. and Europe for years until finally an indult was granted. These bishops and their policies find widespread support now among liberal Catholics.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Sophistry? Then how exactly do you describe your own post here? Or this one by the OP
It serves no purpose to hurl epitaths at those who disagree with you. No one posting her, you included is confused or do not believe what they are posting or are here just to aggrevate. Degrading each others motives, intelligence and sincerity serve no purpose. My reason to ignore all this Fatima hype was summarily dismissed as avoiding the evidence, but I consider it valid. I do not like anything that resembles of gnosticism and I see that here, even if the OP does not. I will concern myself in the Church only with that which is open and has been revealed. It is not revelation that I reject, but the hidden and conspiratorial.

To respond as to why I give little credence to this current line of reasoning:
This comes from a journalist who the OP claims to be respected. He is selling a book and is aquainted with a Cardinal. I do not deem these credentials as carrying any authority. The following comments

are in fact* not* documented in the least. How could I respond to any one of them. In fact, the last one does not even refer to Fatima at all, except
which is a classic logical fallacy of false authority. (How can we disagree with the vague “many”) Then we have begging the question when another reference is tied in:

For a respected journalist, a lot of dubious techniques are used to sway opinion.

Why?

The cynic in me says to sell he book. Perhaps he really believes what he says. I just know it does not convince me that there is legitimacy to the his argument.

Let me ask…have you read any Socci, Ferrara, or Kramer? I’d like to know because Socci is a high profile, extremely respected Catholic Journalist in Italy. Ferrara’s credentials are exceptional. Father Kramer is a well known priest who has put forth persuasive evidence to support his positions.

The reason I ask is that the the Popes are on record, public record, making statements about the Third Secret that suggest it has not been revealed. Are you aware of then Cardinal Benedict said in an interview with Jesus magazine about the Thrid Secret? If so can you explain it?

This will help me understand what your discussion points are based upon.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

You don’t think Heaven’s instructions should be followed to the letter? That is surprising.

Its comments like this that show a grave misunderstanding of the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Private revelations are not binding nor do they require our assent. We are free to not believe in them if we so choose.

By this comment you are raising a private revelation to the level of public revelation, you require our assent to it which the Church does not.

 

[Paul_Folbrecht]

Sophistry? Then how exactly do you describe your own post here? Or this one by the OP
It serves no purpose to hurl epitaths at those who disagree with you. No one posting her, you included is confused or do not believe what they are posting or are here just to aggrevate. Degrading each others motives, intelligence and sincerity serve no purpose. My reason to ignore all this Fatima hype was summarily dismissed as avoiding the evidence, but I consider it valid. I do not like anything that resembles of gnosticism and I see that here, even if the OP does not. I will concern myself in the Church only with that which is open and has been revealed. It is not revelation that I reject, but the hidden and conspiratorial.

I find this quote very interesting since I think I and others supporting me here have been both more charitable and more logical than the other side thus far (Lily excepted).

I’m sorry, PNewton, but the phrase ‘you do not understand Church authority’ is not an ‘epithet’ and is not ‘degrading’. You seem to me here to be following the false modern mantra that to correct is evil - that ‘feelings’ are paramount and saying anything to anyone that may ‘hurt their feelings’ is ‘bad’. Counseling the ignorant is one of the spiritual works of mercy, and I mean no insult when I say that I think some of you are at least somewhat ignorant in your understanding of Church authority. Please see my previous reply to me for details on what I mean.

Your position that you will ‘reject’ anything ‘hidden’ is simply illogical and has no basis. Not in the Church.

I am reminded of another thread you participated in concerning masonic influences on the Church. You took the same line, insinuating everybody was a nut because, apparently, you hadn’t heard much about masonry and it all sounded nutty. Then Church documents condemning masonry were posted, and, more importantly, it was noted that Archbishop Bugnini himself said in his own book that Paul VI banished him to Iran because he believed he (Bugnini) was a mason! You fell silent at that point.

[Whether or not Bugnini was a mason was not the point: What the quote made clear was that the pontiff considered masonry a real threat to the faith.]

To respond as to why I give little credence to this current line of reasoning:
This comes from a journalist who the OP claims to be respected. He is selling a book and is aquainted with a Cardinal. I do not deem these credentials as carrying any authority.

Of course they don’t carry much on their own. But to completely ignore his work (which our Holy Father thanked him for) because you don’t consider him - noteworthy enough - that is logical?

The following comments

are in fact* not* documented in the least. How could I respond to any one of them. In fact, the last one does not even refer to Fatima at all, except
which is a classic logical fallacy of false authority. (How can we disagree with the vague “many”) Then we have begging the question when another reference is tied in:

Not documented! Ha! You mean because I didn’t provide the references here? Of course they are documented and, since someone has finally called that into question, I’ll post them!

You really lost me on the ‘classic logical fallacy of false authority’. Could you explain that? It seems to me you are saying that these quotes from Lucy, Pius, John Paul II, Ratzinger, and others carry no weight at all.

The cynic in me says to sell he book. Perhaps he really believes what he says. I just know it does not convince me that there is legitimacy to the his argument.

Yes, again, without looking at any of them.

He started writing the book in defense of Bertone. Nobody, not even Bertone, has disputed that.

 

[Iowa_Mike]

Its comments like this that show a grave misunderstanding of the Teachings of the Catholic Church.

Private revelations are not binding nor do they require our assent. We are free to not believe in them if we so choose.

By this comment you are raising a private revelation to the level of public revelation, you require our assent to it which the Church does not.

ByzCath:

You split hairs. No one on this thread has made the case that private or private revelation made public is dogma. But I have made the case that the Holy Mother Church as approved Fatima as worthy of believe. So why do you and your cohorts on this forum get so twisted up because some of us do just what the Church suggested?

Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong? So what does it mean when the Church approves Marian appirations like Fatima, Akita, Lourdes anyway. Why is it that millions flock to these places annually and so many miracles have been associated with them? I accept you are not obliged to believe but I don’t understand why you so easily dismiss them.

One meaning of revelation is, “communication, by a divinity or by divine agency, of divine truth or knowledge; specif., God’s manifestation of the divinity or of the divine will to humanity”. So if the Church approves them, if the Church honors them as the Popes regularly do, why do you find it so hard to accept?

Finally, why are you so adament about the details. If you don’t believe…don’t believe.

God Bless,

Iowa Mike