The Third Secret

[Shoshana]

Just a couple of paragraphs from Socci’s book. I will do this every so often as I type them:

• For decades there prevailed political and diplomatic preoccupations on the part of those who besieged the pope with warnings that the act requested by the Virgin would be an open provocation to the Soviet Communist power. Then, to the advocates of Postpolitik were added to those who—making ecumenical dialogue into a dogma—have feared an apocalyptic rupture with the Russian Orthodox Church. Finally, many theologians have turned up their noses at talk of a ‘consecration’ to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, because they do not wish to offend Protestants who do not hold Mary worthy of the dignity of a ‘consecration.’ P20
• Is one referred, therefore, to another text? Is that where the ‘dynamite’ is? Evidently, yes. Cardinal Ottaviani, who was head of the Holy Office, stated explicitly on February 11, 1967 why that decision had been made ten years earlier: ‘To prevent something so delicate a nature, not destined for public consumption (sic!) from falling, for any reason whatsoever, even accidently into alien hands.’ But if the Madonna had appeared at Fatima so sensationally to give precisely a message ‘so delicate’ and urgent for humanity and for the Church, how can we Catholics ‘silence Her’ and censor Her, holding that Her message was ‘not destined for public consumption’? Is it not an act of supreme pride to pretend ourselves more prudent than She who is venerated as ‘Virgin most Prudent’, and wiser than she who is described as ‘Seat of Wisdom’? How is it possible that political considerations or human fear have prevailed over the obedience due to Heaven? P29

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Not charitable whatsoever. Gruner is still a Catholic…a disobedient one, but Catholic nonetheless.

Is one a Catholic if one doesn’t hold to the Catholic faith? Is there a right to dissent from the hierarchy? From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:

1. The freedom of the act of faith cannot justify a right to dissent.

 

[Shoshana]

Is one a Catholic if one doesn’t hold to the Catholic faith? Is there a right to dissent from the hierarchy? From the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

This puts a fine point on the general statement I made in passing. The crux of the matter is whether one believes the Magisterium and holds that it is of supernatural origin and thus guided by the Holy Spirit, or whether it is only a human institution run by the authority the people themselves give it. Too many believe the latter and they are wrong, to their own peril and should not be listened to even for entertainment purposes. The Magisterial authority has spoken on this matter: vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html

OK I agree 99.9% with you.Although Fr Gruner is a lot more Catholic than a lot of priests out there. He also lives a very simple life and dones not live in opulence like a lot of priests out there.

The Magisterium has not not spoken definitly on the issue of Fatima. We are free to believe in the apparitions or not, and we are free to believe the Vatican’s interpretation of things or not when it comes to Fatima. I disagree with them on this and I am no less a Catholic for it. I am not being disobedient at all either.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

OK I agree 99.9% with you.Although Fr Gruner is a lot more Catholic than a lot of priests out there. He also lives a very simple life and dones not live in opulence like a lot of priests out there.

The Magisterium has not not spoken definitly on the issue of Fatima. We are free to believe in the apparitions or not, and we are free to believe the Vatican’s interpretation of things or not when it comes to Fatima. I disagree with them on this and I am no less a Catholic for it. I am not being disobedient at all either.

If it is determined to be worthy of assent and the Fatima prayer is incorporated into the Rosary, then the Church has definitively defined what this means. It is true to say we are not compelled to believe it because we have the fullness of revelation already, but to give assent of “human faith” to it is to cooperate with the Blessed Virgin in the works She, and God, wants to highlight at this time. I will to listen to the Church and to work with it as I believe it has the authority given by Christ and the Church is working against forces beyond our comprehension. We need all the help we can get. The Blessed Virgin is someone Who is giving us that help. The Virgin is the form of the Church and She is our model to follow.

 

[missal]

I concur. Nowhere is there the word ‘Russia’ ever used by any Pope since 1960.

Heaven was pleased when the world was entrusted to the immaculate heart of Mary…nonetheless, the full effect of the benefits was not produced BECAUSE our Lady said that also. She said it will eventually be consecrated to Her but it will be late. She also promised that Her Immaculate Heart will reign.

She also (or Jesus) said that the world will suffer no different than when the King of France was supposed to entrust France to His Most Sacred Heart. But it was too late. The King was beheaded and France became what she is today. All because of disobedience…

Thank you for such a beautiful blessing, Shoshana.View attachment 6336

 

[Shoshana]

If it is determined to be worthy of assent and the Fatima prayer is incorporated into the Rosary, then the Church has definitively defined what this means. It is true to say we are not compelled to believe it because we have the fullness of revelation already, but to give assent of “human faith” to it is to cooperate with the Blessed Virgin in the works She, and God, wants to highlight at this time. I will to listen to the Church and to work with it as I believe it has the authority given by Christ and the Church is working against forces beyond our comprehension. We need all the help we can get. The Blessed Virgin is someone Who is giving us that help. The Virgin is the form of the Church and She is our model to follow.

Our Lady gave words to explain the Secret…the vision with a Pope killed, etc. These words were too much according to the Popes to give to the public…I will believe Our Lady anyday…

 

[Shoshana]

• Contrary to what is believed and what the mass media have repeated, the authority of the Church has never officially identified John Paul 2 as the Pope killed in the Secret, nor the prophetic vision of that assassination as the failed attempt in St Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981 P38
• If the ‘preventative interpretation’ of Sodano was indubitably intended to suggest precisely this reading (with a series of surprising twists of the text), it has to be said that the prelate has never precisely formulated such an identification, and that he has proposed his interpretation with a shower of ‘(it) seems’ that render it simply a respectable hypothesis, not binding on anyone.P39
• The Pope in the vision, according to Cardinal Sodano, ‘falls to the earth as if dead.’ Yet, with all due respect, it has to be recognized that the Third Secret says something quite different: ‘The Pope in the prophetic vision ‘is killed’, and this is vastly different from different wounded. At any rate, the rest of the scene of the vision of Fatima, which seems to evoke a situation of war and destruction, does not have nay point of contact with the scene in St Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981—neither the protagonists nor the ‘soldiers’, let alone the ‘arrows’. The attack in 1981 stands with respect to that vision exactly as the other attempts suffered by popes—for example, the attack on Paul 6 on Nov. 27, 1970, when he was stabbed in the abdomen by a lunatic in Manila. (Pius 12 was also subjected to plans for deportation by the Nazis and plans for assassination. P40

 

[missal]

• Contrary to what is believed and what the mass media have repeated, the authority of the Church has never officially identified John Paul 2 as the Pope killed in the Secret, nor the prophetic vision of that assassination as the failed attempt in St Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981 P38
• If the ‘preventative interpretation’ of Sodano was indubitably intended to suggest precisely this reading (with a series of surprising twists of the text), it has to be said that the prelate has never precisely formulated such an identification, and that he has proposed his interpretation with a shower of ‘(it) seems’ that render it simply a respectable hypothesis, not binding on anyone.P39
• The Pope in the vision, according to Cardinal Sodano, ‘falls to the earth as if dead.’ Yet, with all due respect, it has to be recognized that the Third Secret says something quite different: ‘The Pope in the prophetic vision ‘is killed’, and this is vastly different from different wounded. At any rate, the rest of the scene of the vision of Fatima, which seems to evoke a situation of war and destruction, does not have nay point of contact with the scene in St Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981—neither the protagonists nor the ‘soldiers’, let alone the ‘arrows’. The attack in 1981 stands with respect to that vision exactly as the other attempts suffered by popes—for example, the attack on Paul 6 on Nov. 27, 1970, when he was stabbed in the abdomen by a lunatic in Manila. (Pius 12 was also subjected to plans for deportation by the Nazis and plans for assassination. P40

Yes, that is exactly what the current dispute reveals.
We still await the public Consecration of Russia by our Pope and bishops.

“Many times the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation.” …Sister Lucy of Fatima
The errors of Russia - meaning COMMUNISM - are not a thing of the past. COMMUNISM IS ALIVE, stronger and more evil than ever!
Our Lady of Fatima warned us AGAIN and AGAIN that God will allow these evil people to accomplish their objective of world domination if Her Fatima requests are not fulfilled in time.
Entire nations “will be annihilated”, She said, BILLIONS of souls will be lost unless we have recourse to Her. Remember, only She can save us View attachment 6340

 

[Shoshana]

• One traditionalist study affirms that according to the structure of the message, or rather the contents of the apparitions of June 13 and July 13, 1917 as they were set forth in Lucia’s Fourth Memoir, the vision of ‘the bishop dressed in white’ (the Third Secret) lacks the Virgin’s explanation in Her own words. That is, it would lack a part that the Vatican decided not to reveal. I must recognize that in support of this hypothesis, according to which the Third Secret also has a part where the words of the Virgin would be found, there has emerged a very strong argument that must be considered a formidable point in favor of the ‘Fatimist’ hypothesis. P66
• The assumption of the Fatimists is as follows: The Madonna always explains the visions that She shows to the children. In the apparition of June 13 the Virgin speaks of the destiny of Jacinta, Francisco and Lucia and immediately after there is had the corresponding vision (‘we saw ourselves in this light…’). Also, on July 13 ‘we see that the Madonna gives a vision to the shepherds and then explains to them its significance.’ In fact, Sister Lucia describes the terrible images of Hell and immediately after reports the words of the virgin: ‘You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go…’ As Father Kramer notes: ‘In order that the shepherds would understand what they had seen, the Madonna had given them an explanation:’ You have seen Hell.’ Yet again, we see that when the Madonna gives a vision to the shepherds, She explains its significance to them.’ But where the Third Secret is concerned we have only the vision, which is, moreover, very mysterious. Father Kramer asks: ‘Why would the Madonna have explained something so obvious as the vision of Hell, while failing to provide a single to explain something as obscure as the passage published by the Vatican?’ The answer could be the following: Because that vision does nothing besides explain the words just pronounced by the Madonna, those concerning the persecutions, which constitute the Second Secret. Father Kramer replies, however that there are particulars of the vision that are highly symbolic that have not been explained and which remain mysterious. For example, that relative to the angel, and above all the assassination of the Pope and the others in the narration. Therefore, the vision cannot be a representation of that which is predicted in the Second Secret. P66

 

[Doxiemom]

Have not millions in russia returned to Christianity? Thus there have been many souls saved.

what the government is can be vastly different that what the people are.

Just as it is with the Church. They can destroy the buildings, burn the bibles, kill the priests, kill the popes, kill the other christian leaders of all denominations, they can kill all of us off one by one, yet there will remain a Body of Christ until Jesus choses to begin the process that leads to His Second Coming and He sits on David’s throne and is King of kings and Lord of lords .

If all that is connected with fatima is true, then souls of russia have been saved, and will continue to be saved. Nothing it seems is able to keep out the Word of God in these amazing days. And horror will likely come to the whole church. But we have Christ, our bridegroom, and we are His visable Bride.

No mystery there to be solved.

 

[Albizzi]

Have not millions in russia returned to Christianity? Thus there have been many souls saved.

what the government is can be vastly different that what the people are.

Just as it is with the Church. They can destroy the buildings, burn the bibles, kill the priests, kill the popes, kill the other christian leaders of all denominations, they can kill all of us off one by one, yet there will remain a Body of Christ until Jesus choses to begin the process that leads to His Second Coming and He sits on David’s throne and is King of kings and Lord of lords .

If all that is connected with fatima is true, then souls of russia have been saved, and will continue to be saved. Nothing it seems is able to keep out the Word of God in these amazing days. And horror will likely come to the whole church. But we have Christ, our bridegroom, and we are His visable Bride.

No mystery there to be solved.

Doxiemon,
No, millions of russians have returned only to the Orthodox faith, not to the catholic one. When our Lady spoke of the “Conversion of Russia” certainly didn’t she meant she wanted a coming back to the tsarist-orthodox faith of the pre communist era.
The problem is that the persecutions against the Orthodox Church have ceased today, but not those against the Russian Catholic Church. They only became more subtle.
I will agree that the Conversion has happened in Russia the day when Orthodox and Catholic churches will merge in a single Church under the Pope’s authority.

IMHO the Conversion of Russia is yet to come

 

[Shoshana]

• A truly explosive little phrase. Above all, because the ‘etc’ is within quotation marks—that is, Lucia is referring to the words of the Madonna Herself. In the second place because the ‘etc’ signifies that the discourse of the Virgin continues. ‘Is it possible that the words of the Madonna, given by the Mother of god in person, can end with an ‘etc’? Obviously, it is not so. There is an indubitably additional text after the ‘etc’. What happened to this text? P67
• But perhaps a clearer testimony is that of Fr Schweigl, an Austrian Jesuit (1894-1964), Professor at the Gregorian and at the Russicum, who was sent to Fatima to investigate with extreme care the affair of the apparitions, and was charged by Pius X11 with interrogating Sr Lucia precisely concerning the Third Secret. The Jesuit met the Sister on September 2, 1951, and the text of their meeting was then kept secret by the Holy Office. However, upon his return he confided with one of his own who, some years later, wrote a letter-testimony to Frere Michel… The Jesuit reportedly said: I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically—although I must say nothing—would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved (…)’. Regarding the part that concerns the Pope, I had asked (our witness continues): ‘The present Pope or the next?’ To this question Father Schweigl made no reply.’ P72
• Recognizing the scrupulousness of the work of Frere Michel, I believe that this is credible testimony, but it also true that—offered in this manner—the testimony loses much of its weight. However, it is also necessary to observe that Frere Michel’s book, in which this letter was published, appeared in 1985, a full 15 years before the Third Secret was revealed by the Church. And the description by Father Schweigl conforms exactly to the text of the vision (that part that ‘regards the Pope’) and confirms those words of the Virgin (‘In Portugal…’). Therefore the thesis according to which the Third Secret would have two parts—the vision and the words of the Madonna—finds reliable confirmation. P72
• For a long time this beginning of the Third Secret has led to the conviction that the natural sequel is something catastrophic for the Church, and also for the world. Father Joaquin Alonso, the official archivist of Fatima, considered the greatest expert on the subject (who died in 1981) commented thus on the opening words of the Madonna: ‘This phrase clearly implies a critical state of the faith, from which other nations will suffer, and thus a crisis state of the faith, from which other nations will suffer, and thus a crisis of the faith. Therefore, in the period that precedes the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary there will occur terrible things which are the object of the Third Secret. Which things? If ‘In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved’ it can clearly be deduced that in other parts of the church these dogmas will be obscured or even lost{…}. Is is therefore probable that the test refers concretely to the crisis of faith in the Church and to the negligence of the Pastors themselves.’ Some years later Father Alonso will even write that the Secret speaks of ‘internal struggles in the womb of the Church and of grave negligence by the upper hierarchy,’ and ‘deficiencies of the upper hierarchy of the Church.’ P73
• Frere Michel, reporting this thesis of Father Alonso, adds two important observations. First of all, he shows that at the beginning, when he had begun to occupy himself with Fatima, Father Alonso had thought differently and then ‘totally changed his mind.’ (NB: Shoshana’s words: we must not forget that Sacco has the same turn-over!). Therefore he adds (as if to give an explanation of this about-face): ‘We are certain that in the meantime he (Father Alonso) had often met with Sister Lucia; we know that during his work on the critical edition of the documents of Fatima, he had opportunities to question her on several occasions. As the official expert appointed by Bishop Venancio, would he have adopted this new position on such a burning question without being certain of at least the tacit agreement of the seer? P73

 

[Shoshana]

• Then Frere Michel reports another page by Father Alonso where he himself lets it be known that things stood this way. He speaks of *defaillances *of the upper hierarchy, and he concludes: ‘For that matter, none of this is foreign to other communications Sister Lucia has had on this subject.’ Frere Michel comments: ‘’This phrase is doubly precious to us. Because beyond the solid induction by Father Alonso, established from numerous clues—‘I have the texts,’ he declared—this phrase reveals to us indirectly the thought of the visionary herself …]. Indeed, if Father Alonso were mistaken on the contents of the final secret, we can be certain that Sister Lucia—who had not feared to deny imaginative hypotheses on many occasions—would have found a way to correct him.’ P74
• Paul V1 arrived at evoking the end times: ‘There is a great disturbance in this moment in the world of the church, and thus it is the faith that is in question. What I shappening today reminds me of the obscure of Jesus in the Gospel of St Luke: ‘When the Son of Man returns, will He still find faith on the earth?’ Books are being published in which the faith is denied in important points, yet the bishops remain silent, as if they do not find anything strange in these books. This, in my opinion, is bizarre. I sometimes read the Gospel of the end times and discern that in this moment there are emerging signs of this end. Are we near the end? This we will never know. It is necessary to hold oneself always ready, but things can go on for a long time. What strikes me, when I consider the Catholic world, is that within the heart of Catholicism there sometimes appears to predominate a type of non-Catholic thought, and it could happen that this non-Catholic thought in the heart of the church will to-morrow become stronger. But it has never represented the thought of the Church.’ P79
• In Jean Guitton, The Secret Paul V1, pp152-153. Pope Montini also pronounced publicly these terrible words: ‘We believe that something preternatural has come into the world precisely to disturb it, to suffocate the fruits of the ecumenical council, and to prevent the Church from bursting out into hymns of joy…I have the sensation that from some fissure the smoke of Satan has also entered into the Temple of God (Paul V1, June 29, 1972). John Paul 2 expressed analogous judgments: ‘We must admit realistically and with profound suffering that Christians today feel lost, confused, perplexed, and also disappointed; there are diffused true and proper heresies in the field of dogma and morals …] the liturgy has been altered; immersed in intellectual and moral relativism and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, by agnostics, by agnosticism, by a vaguely preached illuminism and by a sociological Christianity, deprived of definite dogmas and moral objectivity. It is necessary to begin all over again.’ (L’Osservatore Romano, Feb,. 1981) P79
• My hypothesis—which is based also on some private disclosures—is this: in the highly confidential discussion that took place in the Sacred Palaces between 1999 and 2000 concerning the Pope’s wish to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, a compromise solution was probably reached. In the curia opposition to publication of the third Secret had always been prevalent, above all because of the part concerning the church, or because the prophetic words of the Madonna, which—according to the dominant opinion in the Vatican—would be used against the Vatican and would create great alarm among the people if made available to public opinion and the media. P82
• Probably during these meetings around the Pope a point of agreement was reached, according to which it was decided that on May 13, 2000, at the end of the Mass for the beatification of the two shepherds of Fatima, publication of the text of the vision (with an interpretation that would link it to events in the past) would be announced, and then the essential contents of the message of the Madonna would also be published—implicitly not explicitly—in the homily of John Paul II gave during the Mass. This would permit them to say in conscience that all of the Third Secret had been revealed, but without an integral explicit publication so as to avoid (in their opinion) a great shock to the Christian people, sensationalistic broadcasts and a reaction of panic. P82

 

[Albizzi]

But perhaps a clearer testimony is that of Fr Schweigl, an Austrian Jesuit (1894-1964), Professor at the Gregorian and at the Russicum, who was sent to Fatima to investigate with extreme care the affair of the apparitions, and was charged by Pius X11 with interrogating Sr Lucia precisely concerning the Third Secret. The Jesuit met the Sister on September 2, 1951, and the text of their meeting was then kept secret by the Holy Office. However, upon his return he confided with one of his own who, some years later, wrote a letter-testimony to Frere Michel… The Jesuit reportedly said: I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically—although I must say nothing—would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved (…)’. Regarding the part that concerns the Pope, I had asked (our witness continues): ‘The present Pope or the next?’ To this question Father Schweigl made no reply.’ P72

Shoshana,
Fr Schweigl about the 3rd Secret also spoke of “the words of the Virgin” and Card. Ottaviani who read it too said the same.
In the purported secret that was unveiled in 2000, I found only a description of the vision by Sr Lucy, but nowhere are the “words of the Virgin”.
Certainly these “words” are the lacking part of the set vision/explanation like it was given in the 1st and 2nd Secrets.

I understand well that a number of catholic faithfuls are reluctant in considering that perhaps in a subtle way the Vatican had concealed something in the 3rd Secret’s unveiling of 2000 _ for the Church’s good, of course, and that of the catholics_ but however that is the only correct explanation of a long string of discrepancies we got since 1960 (and even earlier) like Socci clearly demonstrates it.
An obvious confirmation is given by the fact that nobody (and Socci peculiarly) was able to communicate with the Vatican on these discrepancies. Each attempt in asking clarifications on a point or another was curtly rejected: “Take our version of the facts and shut up …”
The Vatican is fond of “dialogue”, but in no way on that sensitive matter.

 

[Shoshana]

But perhaps a clearer testimony is that of Fr Schweigl, an Austrian Jesuit (1894-1964), Professor at the Gregorian and at the Russicum, who was sent to Fatima to investigate with extreme care the affair of the apparitions, and was charged by Pius X11 with interrogating Sr Lucia precisely concerning the Third Secret. The Jesuit met the Sister on September 2, 1951, and the text of their meeting was then kept secret by the Holy Office. However, upon his return he confided with one of his own who, some years later, wrote a letter-testimony to Frere Michel… The Jesuit reportedly said: I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically—although I must say nothing—would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved (…)’. Regarding the part that concerns the Pope, I had asked (our witness continues): ‘The present Pope or the next?’ To this question Father Schweigl made no reply.’ P72

Shoshana,
Fr Schweigl about the 3rd Secret also spoke of “the words of the Virgin” and Card. Ottaviani who read it too said the same.
In the purported secret that was unveiled in 2000, I found only a description of the vision by Sr Lucy, but nowhere are the “words of the Virgin”.
Certainly these “words” are the lacking part of the set vision/explanation like it was given in the 1st and 2nd Secrets.

I understand well that a number of catholic faithfuls are reluctant in considering that perhaps in a subtle way the Vatican had concealed something in the 3rd Secret’s unveiling of 2000 _ for the Church’s good, of course, and that of the catholics_ but however that is the only correct explanation of a long string of discrepancies we got since 1960 (and even earlier) like Socci clearly demonstrates it.
An obvious confirmation is given by the fact that nobody (and Socci peculiarly) was able to communicate with the Vatican on these discrepancies. Each attempt in asking clarifications on a point or another was curtly rejected: “Take our version of the facts and shut up …”
The Vatican is fond of “dialogue”, but in no way on that sensitive matter.

Reading Socci’s book (twice) was certainly explosive …especially coming from someone who, at the beginning, agreed totally with the Vatican. Socci is not even affiliated with Fr Gruner at all… You will read shortly words from Fr Rene lauretin who is very well respected by all…

• Sister Lucia herself, in her extremely rare (authentic) public declarations, explicitly linked the third part of the Secret to the Apocalypse: ‘It is all in the Book of the Apocalypse—read it!’ She also indicated precisely Chapters 8 and 13 of the Apocalypse. And this is truly disquieting, because the eight chapter regards the plague that will rain down upon the earthand and other things regarding the things of the Antichrist This reference to the Gospel seems even more disquieting because one’s thoughts go immediately to the prophecy on the last times contained therein. But if Sister Lucia’s reference to the Apocalypse is know and documented, it is not clear when, where, and to whom the visionary would have made this reference to the Gospel. P89
• In summary Frere Michel says: ‘If Sister Lucia was able to say that the Third Secret is found in the Apocalypse, does this not correspond precisely to the passages concerning apostasy among the pastors of the Church who are placed in the service of an impious political power? Chapter 13, verses 11 through 18? The fact that the first two parts of the Secret correspond, in an amazing way, to the preceding verses strongly encourages us to think so.’ P89
• I recount in full the part composed of Messori’s questions and Ratzinger’s answers: ‘Cardinal Ratzinger, have you read what is called the Third Secret of Fatima: i.e. the one that Sister Lucia had sent to Pope John 23, which he did not wish to make known and ordered deposited in the Vatican archives? ‘Yes, I have read it.’ Why has it not been revealed? ‘Because according to the judgments of the Popes, it adds nothing different to what a Christian must know concerning from Revelation: i.e., a radical call to conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’ (the last things). If it is not made public, at least for now, it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for sensationalism. But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima itself in its well-know contents. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for salvation.’P90
• These are sensational declarations, especially when reread today. In fact, if the third Secret had been only the prophetic vision of the attack on the Pope, one does not see why Cardinal Ratzinger in 1984—that is, three years later the attack in 1981—should say that publication has been withheld ‘in order to avoid sensationalism.’ Once the attack had happened, revelation of the vision that prophesied it would not have been so dramatic. In fact, in 2000 it was revealed in that form without provoking trauma or sensationalism. P91
• Moreover, it is true that only four years before the revelation of 2000, on October, 1996, Cardinal Ratzinger held a press conference at Fatima (rather little known) in which, in response to a question on the eventual future publication of the third Secret, he answered thus: ‘The revelation of the Secret must be made only when it will not be able to create one-sidedness and disequilibrium, concentrating only on its details; the revelation should be made only when it can be understood as an aide to the progress of the faith.’P91

 

[Shoshana]

• Messori’s interview with Cardinal Ratzinger: Therefore no publication at least for now? ‘The holy Father judges that it would not add anything to what a Catholic should know from Revelation and, also from Marian apparitions approved by the Church in their published contents, which cannot but reconfirm the urgency of penance and, of conversion, of pardon, of fasting. To publish the ‘Third Secret’ would mean to expose it to the danger of sensationalistic use of its contents.’ Perhaps also political implications, hazards, it seems that also here—as in the other two secrets—Russia is mentioned? At this point however, the Cardinal announced himself unwilling to proceed further, refusing with firmness to enter into other particulars. P94
• In these considerations by Sister Lucia are expressions characteristics of her mentality and personal thoughts (relative to the last times), and fragments of what she must have known through Revelation. It is worth the trouble to underline the ultimate reason for entering into the Fatima affair itself. Sister Lucia invites us—as does St Paul—to ‘not despise prophecies’. And she warns that contempt or indifference toward the message and to the final assistance that the Virgin came to Fatima to provide, involves that ‘sin against the Holy Spirit’ which cannot be pardoned and will consign humanity to chastisement. It is natural to think that this warning has a specials gravity for the pastors of the Church. Further on we will see, in fact, what their attitude towards Fatima has been. P101
• A point to be stressed: In the interview with Father Fuentes there is again proposed a nexus between the crisis in the Church and terrible trials for the world as contained in the Third Secret. But concerning this interview there has been launched the first great censure, and the first true ecclesiastical polemic. In fact, on July 2, 1959 the Curia of Coimbra—even thought the interview had been published with ecclesiastical approval—issued an extremely harsh note condemning Father Fuentes who, being the postulator of the cause of the two shepherds and having spoken with Sister Lucia, ‘has been permitted to make sensational declarations of an apocalyptic, eschatological and prophetic character, which he claims to have heard from the lips of Sister Lucia herself.’ P102
• Because of the ‘seriousness’ of the matter. Father Fuentes was removed from his position and the curia published a declaration by Sister Lucia that categorically denied everything. When Father Alonso was called to edit the critical edition of the documents of Fatima, he was convinced by this official version. However, with time, studying the immense mountain of documents and above all having been able to speak at length with Sister Lucia, he developed an entirely different view. And in 1976, in The Truth on the Secret of Fatima, he substantially rehabilitated Father Fuentes, declaring that his text ‘certainly corresponds to its essentials to what has already been heard from Sister Lucia.’ Moreover, he made a significant observation: ‘This text does not contain anything that Sister Lucia has not already said in numerous known published writings.’ Frere Michel states that ‘The order came without doubt from Rome.’P102
• What in fact happened between the first publication of the interview and the note from the Curia of Coimbra? What happened was that at Rome a new Pope has been installed, John 23. And it was precisely in those months that the drastic decisions on Fatima were taken. First of all, the decision not to publish the Secret in 1960, as the Madonna and the Sister had requested, a decision that has tied the hands of all of his successors on the Chair of Peter. (Only painfully and with a thousand problems was John Paul II able, and only in part, to ‘liberate’ Fatima) Furthermore, it was precisely in these months that the decision was taken to silence Sister lucia definitely, imposing that silence upon her obedience. P103

 

[Shoshana]

• With the Fuentes case, however, began one of the most incomprehensible paradoxes of Fatima**: Everyone will be able to speak of the apparitions and of the message, except for the only living witness, who endures an inexplicable gagging.** After 1960 Sister Lucia could receive, in fact, only family members and those who came authorized by the Vatican. A very bad decision—made moreover, by high-ranking ecclesiastics who promote the Council in a polemic against the Church of anathemas (that of Pius XII). In his famous discourse at the opening of the council, John 23, implicitly rendering a heavy judgment against his predecessors, affirmed: ‘She (the Church) prefers today to use the medicine of mercy instead of the arms of severity’ and proposed ‘teachings rather than condemnations.’ Therefore, there is no longer censure or excommunication for anyone—except that in the meantime here began a shameful persecution of Padre Pio (who under PiusXII had been left in peace) and the gagging and isolation of Sister Lucia. P104
• Under the pontificate of the ‘good Pope’ there was recommended the persecution of Padre Pio which had already been launched in the last years of the 1930s under the pontificate of Pius XI. Besides humiliations and false accusations, the Capuchin Saint had to endure almost a total prohibition on the conduct of his ministry and therefore doing good and assisting the conversion of thousands of people who came to him, often with the most extreme illnesses, who through him were able to find relief and the grace of healing. The unjust judgment and responsibility of the hierarchy is shown by one particular episode. One day in May 1931, with the arrival of the news of new punishments and prohibitions from the Holy Office, Padre Pio remained serene and imperturbable. Later in his cell he was found crying. When someone tried to console him, he replied rather brusquely: ‘But don’t you understand, my brother, that you should not cry for me. I will have less work and more merit. Cry for all those souls who will be deprived of my witness precisely by those who should defend it.’ P104
• On November 15, 1966, Pope Paul VI repealed Articles 1399 and 2318 of the Code of Canon Law which prohibited the publication without ecclesiastical imprimatur of writings which have as their object apparitions, miracles, prophecies. **In essence after the Council everyone was permitted to speak freely of supernatural events and apparitions such as Fatima, something that remained prohibited only for Sister Lucia, the only living witness of the supernatural event. **What is even more lamentable is that one can speak freely of Fatima even by way of discrediting Sister Lucia, as has been done by articles and books. The Poor sister did not even have the right to defend herself. P104
• But the weightiest of all is the veto imposed on the publication of the documents contained in the official Fatima archives: Father Alonso had been entrusted with the work of their publication, work that began in 1965 and ended in 1976—a monumental undertaking. But by the will of his superiors these 24 volumes, with more than 5,000 documents, have never seen the light of day. P104
• On June 26, 2000, when the Secret was revealed, an editor of Il Giornale interviewed Father Rene Laurentin, the great Mariologist and student of apparitions. Asked if anything was now clear, Father was heard to respond: ‘Not at all. There are some things that do not convince me.’ The cracks which were opening in the official interpretation of the Fatima affair after 2000 were becoming noisier and more numerous. The official version, according to which everything was predicted at Fatima was already accomplished, was leaking water from every part. At any rate, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not seen in the world—far from it—much less the promised peace and the conversion of ‘Russia.’ Above all, after September 11, 2001, it appeared clear that the maternal warnings of the Madonna concerning imminent chastisements were not consigned to the past. In sum, not everything was revealed on June 26, 2000. And perhaps the mystery had been made even more impenetrable. P105

 

[missal]

It has been revealed. The man in white (presumed to be the Pope) going up the hill, seeing dead churchmen, etc. It is believed it was a warning/foretelling of Pope John Paul II being shot.

Want the WHOLE TRUTH? check out www.fatima.org

In Jesus through Mary

 

[Victorious]

Want the WHOLE TRUTH? check out www.fatima.org

In Jesus through Mary

Fr. Nicholas Gruner. Sorry, no sale.

 

[missal]

You and I must be about the same age…

Although in my area the women wore doilies and little Jackie Kennedy type hats. My grandmother wore a babushka tied under the chin (and she didn’t take it off after Mass).

I never saw a mantilla while I was growing up…

Maybe this site will give you the information you are seeking:
www.fatima.org
View attachment 6376