Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

Untitled-1

[UPDATE: The Vatican has responded to this story with a direct denial attributed to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI himself. You may read their statement and our response to it here.]

Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts:

Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.

Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing.

Father Dollinger was ordained a priest in 1954 and served as secretary of the well-respected bishop of Augsburg, Josef Stimpfle. In God’s providence, I met this bishop once when I was not yet a Catholic, and I was deeply touched by his humility, warmth and welcome. He invited me to visit him once in Augsburg. When I was in the process of conversion, I did reach out to him, but then, to my chagrin, I discovered that Bishop Stimpfle had already passed away. (He is greatly missed.)

Father Dollinger was himself also involved with the German Bishops’ Conference’s discussions concerning freemasonry in the 1970s at the end of which came the statement that freemasonry is not compatible with the Catholic Faith.

He later taught moral theology at the seminary of the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross which belongs to the Opus Angelorum. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, is member of that same  Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. Most importantly, Father Dollinger had Padre Pio (d. 1968) as his confessor for many years and became very close to him. Dollinger is also personally known to one of my beloved family members.

This sensitive information pertaining to the Third Secret, which has been circulating among certain Catholic groups for a few years now, has now been personally confirmed to me by Fr. Dollinger himself, at a time in history where the Church seems to have fallen into a pit of confusion. It might help explain, at least in part, why we are where we are now.

Importantly, it shows the loving mercy of the Mother of God to warn us and to prepare her children for this battle that the Church now finds herself in. In spite of the decision of those in responsible places within the Church, She has made sure the fuller truth would still be revealed and spread.

This information also might explain why Pope Benedict XVI, once he had become pope, tried to undo some of the injustices that are directly related with this Dollinger revelation, namely: he freed the Traditional Mass from its suppression; he removed the excommunication of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX); and lastly, he publicly declared in 2010 in Fatima: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.” He also added these words in an interview during his airplane flight to Fatima:

As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church, and that the Church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice.

With this statement, Benedict XVI effectively contradicted his own earlier words of June, 2000, where he had stated:

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.

All these actions of Pope Benedict XVI show that he must have known, in his conscience, that he somehow had to correct certain injustices and confusing ambiguities of the recent past. He defended the traditional Mass, he gave back dignity to the SSPX, and he re-inserted the importance of the Fatima message. Additionally, he also tried to deal with the mystery of Vatican II, although, it seems, in too vague of a manner.

In this context, it might be worth mentioning that my husband and I were both together told by a priest who had met privately with Pope Benedict XVI that Pope Benedict himself considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre to be “most important bishop of the 20th century.” My  husband and I both vouch for having heard these exact words directly from this priest  —  words which were told us in the context of a bishop’s proposal to re-introduce Marcel Lefebvre’s teaching more widely into the Catholic Church.

While we contemplate the gravity of the cumulative omissions and delays concerning the actual release of the full Third Secret, and when heaven had asked us to do it – namely, not later than 1960 – we are grateful to the Holy Ghost that He has seemingly made possible now this affirmative telephone conversation today on the Feast of Pentecost. May the true message of Fatima – together with the recent revelations of Fr. Brian Harrison and Dr. Alice von Hildebrand about what it also contains – spread far and wide and thereby help free all faithful Catholics from any bondage to half truths and deficient loyalties. May we all freely and fully adhere to the full Truth of the Message of Mary’s Mercy – which will surely, under grace, help to set us free!

624 thoughts on “Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima”

  1. Could it be that the rumor is true that there are two parts to the secret, one being kept in the Papal apartment? So that in 2000 before becoming Pope Cardinal Ratzinger only saw one part, but when he became Pope he saw the full multi-page correspondence that is rumored to be in the wooden box?

    Reply
  2. January 4, 1944:

    Now I will reveal the third part of the secret;

    This part is the apostasy in the Church! (1)

    Our Lady showed us a vision of someone who I describe as the ‘Pope’, standing in front of a praising multitude.

    But there was a difference with a real Pope, the evil

    look, this one had eyes of evil. (2)

    Then after a few moments we saw the same Pope entering

    a church, but this church was like the church of hell, there is no way to describe the ugliness of this place, it seemed like a fortress made of gray cement, with broken angles and windows like eyes, there was a beak on top of the building. (3)

    We then looked up at Our Lady who said to us:

    you have seen the apostasy in the Church, this message can be opened by The Holy Father, but must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960. (4)

    During the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone from Peter’s tomb must be removed and transferred to Fátima.

    Because the Dogma of faith is not preserved in Rome, her

    authority will be removed and given to Portugal. (5)

    The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fátima. (6)

    If 69 weeks after this command is announced Rome continues it’s abomination, the city will be destroyed. (7)

    Our Lady told us this is written, Daniel 9 24-25 and Mathew 21 42-44. (8)

    The church in question is the new church of the Most Holy Trinity in Fatima. John Paul 2 indeed sent a stone from St Peter’s tomb to the new church during his pontificate. It is a truly hideous building. Finally, Amoris Laetitia was signed March 19th. 69 weeks from that date is the one hundredth aniversary of the giving of the third secret: July 13th 1917.

    The church in question,

    https://www.google.ca/maps/pla

    An aerial view shows it situated at the “foot” of the Fatima shrine, like a “dragon waiting to devour her offspring” (Rev 12:4)

    http://www.fatimamovement.com/images/img-third-secret-of-fatima/Third-Secret-of-Fatima-large.jpg

    Reply
    • I’m fairly certain the origin of this is Maria Divine Mercy, which has been condemned as false. We have to be very careful with prophecies that say things that sound like what we are seeing or want to hear. Stick with only what is approved. (EDIT: I misunderstood the source of the quote; it is not from MDM, but its origins are unknown and unverified. I’ll leave the MDM comment here as a general warning on that topic.)

      Reply
        • It’s not ironic. Something I am learning more about (and most likely need to share when I have a better grasp) is the importance of the distinction of the dignity and authority of an office and the fallible aspects of the person who holds it.

          Just as we have to respect the papacy itself and the papal office even while Francis seems content to trample it underfoot, so we must treat the office of bishop even when the bishop is bad. Any legitimate exercise of episcopal authority must be respected. At my last count, six bishops had condemned MDM (IIRC) — including the Archbishop of Dublin, who had jurisdiction. This matches my own intuition that these prophecies are false, and has been supplemented by the revelations about Mary Carberry, who is the person behind them.

          But if that quote isn’t from MDM, who is it from?

          Reply
          • Which quote? It’s a translation from the Portuguese in the photo. If MDM has said/printed something similar it’s entirely coincidence. I do not follow her because of the things you mention.
            The question that’s relevant (to me, anyway): what is the source of that photo?

          • My apologies, I didn’t see the photo on the first pass, because I read your comment in an email, and it didn’t show up there.

            I saw this same quote on an MDM-related site the other day, and thought it was from there. I hadn’t seen this photo before, and I know nothing of its origin.

          • I am very curious too about the background: a (bishop’s?) coat of arms.
            The photo itself appeared in spring of 2010 on the internet. No attribution. It has since attached itself to a number of weird websites (anti jew, conspiracy, etc).

          • Weird is an understatement. To quote the
            website this image is attached to, “Our Lady is God. The ‘Lord’ of the Bible is Satan.”

          • I’ve never understood this line of reasoning that is obviously little more than cognitive dissonance

            If faithful Catholics truly respected the higher offices – then they should be all the more impelled to rail against the corrupt men who soil those sacred appointments. No?

          • I tend to think so.

            I often compare this to my own role as a husband and father. I am the head of my household, because God has so decreed it. I did not earn this role, and I have certainly not always deserved it — or used my authority well.

            It’s something I have to live up to just as much as my wife and children have to respect. It’s not about me per se (though I will have to answer for how I used it; as will those under my authority who rebel against it) but about God who instituted it.

            In those times when I was failing utterly to do my duty, my authority over my family didn’t cease to exist; if I exercised it legitimately, even if only by luck, my children would, for example, still have to obey me.

            So it is with the pope and bishops. They may be lousy most of the time, but there are certain juridical decisions they make to which we have no real recourse. We simply have to honor them. This is why, I think, the Church has been so careful in carving out a sensible understanding of when their authority is binding.

          • Well what we have now is tantamount to an abusive father. A bigamist if you will. A father who insists on bringing home other “wives” and who obsessively glorifies the illegitimate children of those “ladies” all the while chiding his legitimate children for their natural yearning for the Traditional Sacredness of the family paradigm. And he blatantly and proudly proclaims his personal self-serving whims to be the irreproachable authoritative “God of Surprises!” who never seems to surprise the philandering father. So to that end – exactly what authority is this pope legitimately exercising? Because the only thing he seems to be exercising is the illegitimate abuse of the very office he was given. It is plain to see that the emperor has no clothes. And his children would be remiss in their honesty to deny that ugly reality. Therefore – what exactly are faithful Catholics supposed to obey?

          • Again, I agree. I think that Francis, insofar as he obsessively courts error, has rarely (if ever) used his papal authority in a way that truly demands the assent of the faithful.

            If I were an alcoholic, womanizing father who never came home, my children would have nothing to obey. But even an alcoholic, womanizing father could make a good rule, and in that case, his child would be bound to honor it.

            My authority analogies are directed specifically, in this instance, at the bishops who have condemned this false apparition. In general, though, I see an inverse relationship between bishops who are heterodox and bishops who exercise their office in an authoritative way.

          • Okay. I understand your immediate reference to the episcopacy. In the end as far as this pope goes, I suppose the simplest rule to follow with a nightmare papacy like this would be the military axiom of:

            “Salute the rank – not the man”

            But even that is a moral bridge too far most of the time. So I suppose the best I can do is limit my personal insults of the wayward man. God give me strength and prudence in this….

            And with that: I will leave this paradoxical summation of the nightmare goodness of the papacy by the incomparable G.K.Chesterton:

            “When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, He chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward – in a word, a man. And upon this rock He has built His Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger than its weakest link.” ~ G.K.Chesterton (Heretics)

          • Having the grace to treat Francis in exactly the way God wants, and not the way to which we may be tempted, is perhaps the greatest trial of our time.

          • I’m not so sure God wants us to treat this pope any different than the way Christ Himself treated Peter when the arrogant fisherman prioritized human concerns over God’s:

            He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.” ~ Matthew 16:23

            At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’” ~ Matthew 4:10

            Two Apostles referred to by Our Savior as The Devil:

            Judas Iscariot – and Peter (Simon Son of Jonah)

            It seems the Lord was telling us that there was barely an angel hair’s difference between the motivations of these two broken Apostles. They were two sides of the same Apostolic Coin, if you will. It’s enough paradoxical irony to choke to death even the most devout saint.

            So I still don’t know where this leaves the faithful at this point….

          • I’ve watched you and Steve come to this point, and I appreciate your arriving at much agreement which I largely share. I’d like to suggest, though, that we cannot consider Christ’s treatment of Peter as you describe as available to us because He is God and we are not. Therefore, I tend to go with Steve’s thinking on it.

          • The problem of course is that Jesus’ rebuke of Peter was in front of the other disciples. For all to see. It could have been done in private – but it wasn’t. And why? Because Peter’s arrogance was on display – and so too was the necessity of the admonishment, Which obviously makes the rebuke for the benefit of His disciples as much as it was for Peter’s sake. If not more so. The sheer objective reality of the setting makes this point irrefutable. So why would the faithful disregard Our Lord’s Own example?

      • Sticking with what has been approved is to hold that there is no part of the third secret that has yet to be unveiled

        Reply
      • I approve of my brother bishop Diarmuid.

        He disapproves of this. Therefore I disapprove of it too.

        Unless I approve of it. Without his approval.

        I can say this, because it is his church.

        Just kidding.

        It is my church.

        Reply
      • MDM was ‘condemned’ by an apostate prelate whose picture is right here seen with an apostate pope. Leave MDM out of it.

        Reply
        • MDM is rightly condemned because it contains heresy. Doesn’t matter how good or bad the bishop is. It is his responsibility as a prince of the Church to pass judgement, and he has. Just as the local bishop passed a negative judgement on Garabandal and Medjugorje (sp?). End of discussion.

          Reply
          • Sister Faustina was also condemned at first, as were many other authentic apparitions.. It is not ‘the end of the discussion’; it is your opinion. In addition, any prelate who does not hold the fullness of the Faith loses his authority to teach–and to assess authenticity of mystical gifts. Having said that, this discussion is not about the authenticity of MDM, Steve attributed a statement to her that did not belong to her. He corrected his error. Stay with the issue at hand.

          • And Steve left a general warning re prophecies which haven’t received the Church’s approbation the responsibility of which lies with the relevant bishop of the diocese. Whether you like it or not that bishop has spoken.

          • Whether you like it or not the matter is far from settled whether ‘Steve’ warned against it or not. All approved apparitions went through the same condemnation procedure.

          • “Just as the local bishop passed a negative judgement on Garabandal”

            I suggest you do more research

        • I won’t. It’s not a valid apparition, and it leads souls astray. I don’t want the deceptions of these prophecies — which I believe are at least human, and quite possibly diabolical in nature — spread on this website.

          Reply
      • No idea where… the translation is written above (ending at (8)). It is in Sr Lucy’s hand, as far as I can tell

        Reply
    • 69 weeks past April 19, 2016 seems to be around mid August 2017 according to my quick calculation. Am I incorrect?

      Reply
          • No significance. 69 weeks after the signing of Amoris laetitia is the one hundredth aniversary of the giving of the three secrets of Fatima, July 13th 1917.

    • “Our Lady showed us a vision of someone who I describe as the ‘Pope’, standing in front of a praising multitude. But there was a difference with a real Pope, the evil look, this one had eyes of evil.”

      “Eyes of evil”? Nonsense of the solemn kind. Almost as solemnly nonsensical as proselytization.

      That long stare was just Me, the ‘Pope’, enveloped in ‘prayer’ to the ‘spirit’.

      http://youtu.be/r7ydNd3i1PE

      Reply
    • That is not the text of the Third Secret. It’s nonsense. Not the real secret. Just another erroneous document in circulation.

      Reply
  3. What I can’t understand is why Pope John XXIII or any of the other following Popes would have let the new Mass be implemented or remain in place if they actually read the Third Secret and it specifically mentioned a Council and new Mass? What are the odds that a new Mass would ever have been implemented back when the apparitions of Fatima occurred or that 1960 was specifically mentioned?

    Reply
    • John XXIII did not implement the Novus Ordo, since he died in 1963. As for the Council, he apparently thought he knew better than Our Lady (see his “prophets of doom” remark in his opening speech to the Council). You should read Franco Bellgrandi’s book “NikitaRoncalli,” wherein Roncalli is painted as a two-faced figure: one face appearing to uphold the traditional Church, the other face determined to harmonize her with the “ideals” of Freemasonry, in accordance with his well-known liberal (i.e. Modernist) background.

      Reply
        • I think he was ‘good pope John’ but he failed. For His own reasons God chooses to work through the brokenness of humanity. The human element is in each one of us, including well–meaning popes. Pope John XX111 and all the popes, up to and including Pope Benedict XV1 were good popes but each of them was human and in one way or another broken. I take exception to the present ‘bishop of Rome’. There is something very different here.

          Reply
          • The news that the SSPX are to be regularised without strings attached to the necessity of their accepting Vatican II would mean the full restoration of TLM worldwide. This could certainly be seen as Our Lady’s intervention. With next May13 marking the 100th anniversary of Her first apparition at Fatima most Catholics await her imminent triumph over the evil Modernist leadership we have endured since that evil Council. At some stage soon I believe Russia will be consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart as She stated it would be and the Third Secret fully exposed.

          • It would definitely be very interesting to see the full restoration of TLM worldwide.
            But I don’t think there’s any sign of that yet. On the contrary, everything seems more Novus Ordo than ever since pope Francis has been in the driving seat.

          • We have been told by Our Lady that when everything seemed to be lost that would be her moment of triumph. I’m sure it will be restored along with all the mess created since Vatican II.

          • THE CHURCH IN AGONY

            Penance Penance Penance

            to avoid Divine vengeance

            for not showing any remorse

            and trying our will to enforce

            The reign of the Impostor has arrived

            the Church, of TRUTH is being deprived

            the whole world hangs on his lips

            while being readied for a total eclipse

            The true followers of Christ

            trying to pull off the heist

            are persecuted for non-compliance

            and being countered with defiance

            When it will seem that all is lost

            everything sacred has been tossed

            God will deliver us from our agony

            and reign forever in all His Majesty

            SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE

            A M E N

            Rita Biesemans, December 19 2013

    • If the Third Secret of Fatima, I.e., the exact words of Our Lady had been revealed, we wouldn’t be in this mess today.

      Reply
          • Evangelical Protestants often put us Catholics to shame with their missionary zeal. They take Jesus’s words to the Apostles before His Ascension — the “Great Commission,” viz. Matt. 28:19 — very, very seriously. We should do the same!

        • Touché. However, even if Pope Pius XI (who was Pope in 1929) had made in union with all the bishops of the world the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Lady still wanted the Third Secret to be revealed in 1960.

          Reply
          • Yes, to the 3rd secret.

            Even though Pius xii mentioned Russia by name (he being the only one) why was that nation never again mentioned by popes?

          • Pope John Paul II was told that mentioning Russia by name would offend the Russian Orthodox hierarchy. And the Vatican has been practicing Ostpolitik for almost 60 years. When Cardinal Josyp Slipyj was released from the Gulag in the early 60s, he lived at the Vatican. When he found out about the conditions under which he was released (the Vatican-Moscow agreement), he wanted to go back to the Gulag.

          • Just a thought. I believe Our Lady was not urging the Consecration of Russia because of the Orthodox faith of which there really is no problem, they just don’t except the absolute authority of Rome. In the West Protestants at that time would be a far bigger problem, being in fact heretics. I believe the Consecration was because Russia was then on the verge of being taken over by Bolshevik Communists. The lies and evil of Communism have indeed spread over the world since that time. The NWO world government and satanic religion seem daily to move closer to fruition, enabled by the traitors within the Catholic Church including most of all Pope Frankie the Fake.

          • JP@ has said that his predecessors didn’t reveal the entirety of the 3rd secret because this would have encouraged the Communists to attack the West. Not sure why 1960 was so important as the release date (according to the BVM) but the world came very close to nuclear war in 1962 with the Bay of Pigs standoff…

          • BTW you probably should drop the ‘fake frankie’ bit. Nobody takes that kind of rubbish seriously and…if you bothered to read the pope’s history (from his earliest days through to cardinal) you would be ashamed of saying this. He is as orthodox a pope as you can get – even if you don’t like his particularly Jesuit manner of communicating.

          • I beg your pardon, but there are some serious differences between the Catholic Faith and the ROC.

            First of all, in re to Our Lady, Her exact words – June 13, 1929 are:

            “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia. My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”

            She wouldn’t have said that if “there really is no problem” with the ROC.

            Second, there are other doctrinal differences between the ROC and the Catholic Faith than just the Papacy . Specifically:

            A) the Filioque,
            B) the Immaculate Conception of Our Lady,
            C) the existence of purgatory

            Quite frankly, I can’t understand WHY anyone would even doubt the Immaculate Conception or the existence of purgatory. Both are not only sound doctrine but make perfect sense as well. (The Filioque no one will ever understand because God is incomprehensible.)

            Finally, please get True or False Pope by John Salza and Robert Siscoe http://www.trueorfalsepope.com. PF may be a lot of things but I wouldn’t use that term in re to him.

          • Our Lady appeared in 1917 the year of the Bolshevik takeover of Russia. She was clearly speaking about International Atheistic Jewish Communism. The reason for 1960 being the latest release date of the third secret, well the horrible Vatican 2 took place shortly after that. No doubt Our Lady knew the Communists would infiltrate and ruin the Catholic Church and had hoped to prevent that.

          • Yes, She appeared in 1917. However, She said during the apparition of July 13:

            “To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. (She asked for reparation in December 1925.)

            “If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. …In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.”

            June 13, 1929 the Holy Trinity and Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucia. Our Lady said:

            “The moment has come in which God asks Holy Father to order and make in union with all the bishops of the world the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.”

            She said she would come to ask for the consecration of Russia and she did.

            Yes, she knew what would happen. That’s why she asked for the consecration of Russia by the Holy Father in union with all the bishops of the world. WWII wouldn’t have happened nor Korea nor Viet Nam etc.

    • In my opinion they did not want to reveal the secret because they really wanted to create Vatican II. If this secret were to be revealed then there could’ve been a great opposition for such new council.

      Reply
      • Some of these men valued their own ideas and their own opinions more than the express wishes of the Mother of God. I have always found it ironic that Our Lady of Fatima was approved , and then not listened to.

        Reply
  4. It’s interesting that the then Cardinal Ratzinger said the secret revealed in 2000 was authentic – the vision that Lucia was given of the bishop dressed in white etc. He neglected to say that the ‘interpretation’ that we were given was NOT authentic. It was made up out of events of the recent past so the true interpretation would not scare us dopes in the pew. Shame.

    Reply
    • Didn’t he also say that the 3rd secret was a figment of her imagination?

      He said:

      “The concluding part of the ‘secret’ uses images which Lucy may have seen in devotional books and which draw their inspiration from ancient intuitions of faith.”

      Reply
  5. The work of Fatima is an ongoing work there is a continuance that is dismissed by some who have been told about the next. Let me tell you of the bad mass it is blasphemous in that it literally causes the laity to turn their back on the altar, It wrongly interpretive of the unity of the Church and it also contains many blasphemous and useless receptions of Holy Communion and God promises that He will not be present in the Hoist taken by so many and those sacrifices are not valid and those unforgiven by a lack of the sacrament of confession are soon to answer for their idolatrous actions. At the Crucifixion Christ only promised the repentant thief Paradise, the unrepentant one he ignored. There are other facts that are yet o b told. One is there ar too many unqualified experts who shuld be quiet

    Reply
    • Mike Hurcum, in the Mass of Paul VI (Novus Ordo Missae), it is the *priest* who turns his face to the faithful and his back to the altar.

      Reply
  6. In private Ratzinger says the entirety of the third secret was not published and he said that after publicly proclaiming the entirety of the third secret was published.

    This is what IANS appreciates so much about continuity but he is flummoxed as too when Ratzinger was to be believed;

    Was it his public proclamations to be believed or only his private conversations or some of his public but not all of his private or the majority of his public but only 49/4% of his private?

    This new esoteric faith is sure fun…..

    Reply
    • We know from the times he has spoken PUBLICLY that he has contradicted himself when it comes to the 3rd Secret. The question is, why has nobody ever bothered to confront him to clarify the matter? Either there is some way for him to clear the air or we are left with nothing other to conclude that he was LYING in 2000, perhaps as others have said, his hand was forced by Sadano. But as Pope he was beholden to no one. The sad fact is that there are plenty of grounds FACTUALLY known to see that he was compromised and involved in the initial cover-up.

      Reply
      • He wasn’t lying as such. I think that’s a bit harsh. He was genuinely concerned about the panic it would cause if revealed. His ‘mental reservation’ about the rest of the 3rd secret probably best describes his unwillingness to reveal the totality of the secret – John Paul II felt the same way.

        It was Sodano who conspired with others (such as Bertone) to fabricate the publicised “3rd secret”. I think they convinced Card.Ratzinger as he was then, to accept this version.

        Both Benedict XVI (and JP2 before him) then, seemed to be persuaded by the evil adjutants in the Vatican that this interpretation should be published – there was a lot of external pressure for publication. Both later admitted that this published one was inaccurate and incomplete and when pressed, Benedict/Ratzinger replied “Truly that was not all of it.”

        Part 1 of the 3rd Secret concerns the Pope and Part 2 is about the apostasy, the One World church, wars, famines and civil chaos and the Divine Chastisement. See Akita apparitions.

        Fatima priest Fr. Schweigl who knew the 3rd secret entirely 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.’ So the chastisement, war, famines, etc come after the words “In Portugal the faith will always be preserved..”

        The last few popes have had all kinds of obstructions and lies told to them by those closest. It is in part why the Vatican’s response to the paedophilia scandal was so slow and so ineffective.

        The secret manipulations of popes (and the Church generally) is longstanding. Check out the imposter pope installed when Paul VI was gravely ill during the 1970’s. This TLDM site shows some indisputable information and images about this. http://www.tldm.org/News8/MysteriesOfPopePaulVI‘sPapacy.htm

        Benedict was so suspicious of the inner conclave of cardinals and bishops that he brought in Georg Ganswein from Germany as his own personal secretary.

        Francis has appointed Card. Pell from Australia to sort out the corrupt Vatican Bank – he is known as honest, pious, intelligent and very determined and the entrenched careerist (read corrupt) Italian cardinals and bishops hate him and his work. But is is essential de-corrupting work.

        Reply
  7. I believe when Pope Benedict talked about the Third Secret as Pope, he could only speak on the released part, there may have been in the part we cannot see a message from Our Holy Mother saying this is not for the eyes of all my children; meaning us, but for certain few; just like she gave certain messages to St. Bernadette for her own-self and the rest were for everyone.

    Reply
    • YOU ALL ARE A BUNCH OF FOOLS. THE BAD MASS IS LIKELY THE MASS OF SSPX! IT IS A SCHISMATIC MASS, WHICH IS A GRAVE EVIL!

      THIS PIECE IS GRAVELY SINFUL GOSSIP AGAINST A SAINTLY POPE EMERITUS.

      THE AUTHOR IS JUST AS GUILTY OF ERROR – SHE ASSUMES THAT HER PHONE CONVERSATION IS FROM “THE HOLY GHOST” – AS AMORIS LAETITIA ASSUMING THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT GUIDES THE CHURCH TO DO EVIL.

      Reply
      • YOU are the fool.

        In what world could the Mass of the Ages suddenly become a schismatic Mass? The Novus Ordo was designed by a Freemason who lied to both the pope and the commission, resulting in a retooled Mass which satisfied his designs?

        Reply
        • Hi Phil, thanks for the mention of the freemason thing (which a Catholic cannot be)… could you elaborate for others as to whom this was and the background on him? thanks

          Reply
          • Abp Annibale Bugnini was the main architect of the NO Mass, although some Protestant theologians helped as “advisers”. Pope Paul VI assigned this task to him, although Pope John XXIII had fired him. After the NO Mass was promulgated in 1969, Bugnini was exposed as a Freemason, and in effect exiled to a do nothing post. The history of the development of the NO Mass is very convoluted and murky.

        • Novus Ordo lost a lot of beautiful prayers where we asked and begged for the mercy of God. I prefer the Latin Mass with all the beautiful prayers in place.

          Reply
          • God cares Nothing for your “beautiful prayers”; Human ‘righteousness’
            is a wretched ‘pile of filthy rags’ before The Lord. Don’t waste His, or your
            time and effort in this regard. Just talk to Him. He can hear you just fine.

            And eventually you might want to actually read The Bible. It’s not hard.

          • Protestants creating a Golden Idol out of a book was the first step on the path to Apostasy!!!

          • CHRIST THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD

            Jesus the world’s only true Light
            is almost completely rejected
            they keep Him out of sight
            instead of Him satan is erected

            what is this world becoming
            we’re really in apocalyptic times
            the Bible is read thumbing
            skyrocketing are the crimes

            locked is every room in the inn
            for the Savior of man
            no need for remission of sin
            to that we all say “AMEN”

            Jesus is betrayed
            even by His own disciples
            they say “enough” they prayed
            only, to their own idols

            they see themselves so illuminated
            while the True Light is extinguished
            the whole world they contaminated
            and the Truth they relinquished

            They reject the Christ in Christmas
            worshipping a lighted tree instead
            even the real Saint Nicholas
            has been left behind for dead

            We call on You, O Lord and Master
            help us to stop this abomination
            to reinstall You as our Pastor
            and as King of Your Creation

            May the time be coming soon
            that You will reign over a New World
            announce it with a Heavenly tune
            when all devils are safely furled.

            Emmanuel, God with us, who then can be against us

            Let Your Light shine upon us, especially this Christmas

            We love You Jesus

            Rita Biesemans, Christmas 2014

          • The bible was compiled, protected, copied through the centuries, and translated for the first time into the common language (See Latin Vulgate) of the day by the Catholic church. You may want to read the book, “Where We Got the Bible.” written by a converted protestant minister for more information.

        • I grew up with the Latin Mass and we went to daily Mass (High School was for me 6 years Latin-Greek Humanities in a Boarding School). But the respect, the quiet, the Eucharistic Veneration was tangible during the Holy Mass. After Communion there was a 15 minutes complete stillness, our hearts and spirits communicating with Jesus and venerating Him, so much peace and quietness that you would have been able to hear a needle fall. The connection with Jesus received in the Holy Host was strong and we felt our heart beating with love for Jesus. The Chapel was accessible the whole day. Being in the Chapel gave us such a strong bond with Jesus, we really felt His presence and His Godliness. O how I long for those days, now with the Novus Ordo it’s like going to a social meeting, shaking hands, laughter, NO RESPECT for Jesus.
          I have no words enough to describe the disgust.
          I can only pray and pray that the Lord will NOT postpone His coming to cleanse this world and to renew His Church.
          Riki

          Reply
          • I couldn’t agree with you more Riki. We have a chapel by us that Mother Mary has appeared at, which has been approved by the vatican. The Latin Mass is gradually being introduced back. Now a group of liberal Franciscan nuns have come in and are trying to remove it again. It is so irritating. I just pray that our bishop will see what is truly going on and put a stop to it.

          • Yvonne, please let’s keep each other in our prayers !
            BTW which chapel is that where our Lady appeared ?
            God bless you in abundance this day and ongoing.

        • Real answer: with any priest who refuses to put the name of the Holy Father or diocesan Ordinary in the Canon. SSPX don’t do the former, but do they do the latter in all of the diocese they intrude in?

          Reply
      • Yes, Phil Steinacker is precisely right. A Mass celebrated for centuries cannot be a “grave evil.” If you are saying that the traditional Mass itself is somehow evil this would make no sense. If, on the other hand, you are saying that the traditional Mass celebrated only by the SSPX is “evil” you would be contradicting that same Pope Emeritus whom we both hold in high regard. You would probably also be contradicting Francis because he appears to be saying that the SSPX is not schismatic.

        Reply
        • The Mass is not and never has been schismatic…but C. Lefebvre was schismatic and vile, calling Pope John Paul a satan and declaring that those who followed the teachings of Vatican II to be evil and only those who agreed with him to be on the right track…and those Bishops he ordained are still schismatic….however, from what I know of their Priests, they really are sincere and serious about their faith and it is beautiful…I hope reconciliation will take place soon…because I believe they will bring a healthy influence on Catholics, especially here in America…

          Reply
          • How in the world can both be reconciled? Do you realize how infiltrated the church is? As tiny as sspx is, they would be swallowed whole , into oblivion. They need their own prelature, period.

          • First of all, Msgr. Lefebvre was an Archbishop, not a Cardinal.

            Second, if he is “schismatic”, and the SSPX is ” schismatic “, then they’re the only schismatics that pray publicly for the Pope. Oremus pro Pontifice Francisco in Benediction, the Mass etc.

            Archbishop Lefebvre did what was necessary for the good of the Church, not himself. If you get his biography by Bishop de Mallerais from Angelus Press (Google it) you will see what he had to go through. He didn’t want to e it, but he HAD to for the good of souls.

            I have his biography and it’s a fantastic read. If you get it, I suggest that you read it on a Sunday afternoon when you’re relaxed because you won’t want to put it down. Full disclosure: I don’t attend an SSPX chapel but have attended their retreat house in CT.

          • Schism isn’t only limited to the Holy Father, but to the bishops in communion with him, as well.

            I thank God for Abp. Lefebvre saving the Mass, even if I don’t agree with everything he did and pray mercy on his soul for tolerating many elements that are now rather… inconvenient (such as selecting Bp. Williamson, for example), as well as entertaining sedevacantists. None of the Saints have ever had to be perfect, but it’s a more complicated question when you consider the scope of the SSPX and how many diocese they’re in defiance of the jurisdiction of the bishop there. By the disciplines of Trent, that is not allowed if they are really bishops (heretics or not – if they are, Canon Law has provision for an investigation and trial).

          • I beg your pardon, but the Archbishop NEVER entertained sedevacantists. He threw them out of his seminaries. When I was on retreat some years ago, the SSPX priest who gave us a conference told us that he personally saw Archbishop Lefebvre drag a sedevacantist seminarian by the ear and threw him out of the seminary, plus others who had sedevacantist tendencies.

            Re Bishop Williamson:. Quite frankly, I feel sorry for him. People can argue over what he said/didn’t say until Judgement Day. When he was still rector of St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, I sent him two books for the seminary library. I received a hand-written thank you note from him. (I still have the note too.) By contrast, I sent another book to his successor in Winona, and received a typed thank you note saying that the book was given to Bishop Fellay for the Mother house in Switzerland. I love Bishop Fellay too, but I was disappointed that was not kept at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary.

            Finally, if you read St. Athanasius:. Defender of the Faith by the late, great + Michael Davies, he tells about how St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius of Samosata ordained orthodox bishops in place of Arian “bishops” in order to provide sound Catholic bishops for the faithful. The 2 main functions of the SSPX bishops are to ordain traditional priests and administer the Sacrament of Confirmation to the faithful. Obviously. they have to preach the Gospel etc., but those are the two main functions of the SSPX bishops. They don’t replace local bishops. If you read the 1988 episcopal sermon of the Archbishop he made it perfectly clear that he was NOT establishing a new church and specifically stated what the bishops would and would not do.

            http://www.sspx.org/en/1988-episcopal-consecrations-sermon

          • Unfortunately, while he kicked out open sedes, Fr. Cekada had more than a few examples of the Abp. winking at them. Unfortunately, I see Bp. Fellay in a similar situation, though the departure of Williamson should provide an outlet.

            I never said replace, I said intruded on their jurisdiction per Trent, defying and denying their authority. The example you propose explicitly endorses schism. That’s not how St. Ambrose and St. Augustine dealt with heretics, even in the place of intruded Arians.

            Part of the original protocol signed by Abp. Lefebvre was that the Superior General would not be a Bishop. FSSP has shown no shortage of diocesan Ordinaries willing to do traditional ordinations or confirmations. Neither the SSPX nor larger Church benefit from titular bishops without jurisdiction. Imagine Bp. Fellay and the rest as diocesan Ordinaries with real jurisdiction. Imagine one as president of Pontifical Commission Ecclesia Dei, perhaps as co chair with Fr. Bisig or Berg from FSSP (co-consecrated by one of the SSPX). That would be a thunderbolt! Imagine if/when one could be a Cardinal.

            Reconciliation going forward would integrate tradition with the rest of the Church, not isolate into an enclave.

          • Maybe when The True Fatima Secret is revealed you will realize that it has to do with the infiltration by Satanic forces of the Catholic Church. Research the prophecies of The Lady at La Salette. Follow blindly follow foolishly. To mislead the sheep all Satan needs to do is control the Shepherds.

          • No one who is of God speaks in the obscene, demonic way you speak and have spoken…beware that satan is not using you as his tool!!!

          • Prayers of exorcism are coming your way – I pray you will realize that you are possessed by evil and it will consume you…I will no longer respond to you because the evil within you is becoming stronger…begone satan! In the name of Jesus, be gone!

          • Riki has something to say to this :

            In my last year of nursing school (late 60’s) I had to write a dissertation for Philosophy. Since I’m Jewish via both of my parents (we are Catholic-Jews) I wrote about the facts leading to how we viewed and treated our Jewish pt’s in Antwerp. I interviewed rich and poor, thus a lot of different social levels. One of them was an MD working @ 1 of our hospitals. His father was 33-rd degree mason of the Bnei Brith (jewish freemasons). He was saying :”soon the church bells won’t be allowed to ring anymore. We atheists are offended by being woken up on Sunday mornings by the church bells they remind us of God and Jesus”. Sometime later : NOT A SINGLE CHURCH BELL WAS RINGING !! And it is still like that. I just read that Belgium is providing millions of Euro’s government money to the Islam to build more mosques in that country and they can call to prayer x5 a day and that’s a lot of decibels, I guarantee you.

            On another occasion, an MD, professor@the “Free(mason) University of Brussels”, he being a HIGH RANKED FREEMASON and one of the first in the world performing IVF and CLONING, head of our OB-department,said to me one night (while waiting to do a delivery) : how long are we fighting against the Catholic Church? Almost a 100 years now and I tell you before the year 2000, they won’t speak about the Catholic Church anymore etc… At that moment I heard our Lady of La Salette say : a period of a 100 years will be given to the devil…..Oh yes satan knows he’s coming at the end which makes him like a roaring lion raging all over the world. IN GOD WE TRUST.

      • I thought it was not so bad until she stated that Pope Benedict said that C. Lefebvre was the greatest theologian of the 20th Century…this is an article intended to cause division…Pope Benedict thoroughly affirmed the teachings of Vatican II…yes, he did ‘reinstate’ the Traditional Mass while saying that in reality there was no need to do so since it had never been prohibited but he wanted to let it be known publicly that the Traditional Mass was to be permitted. Truly, the Church is being harmed by articles such as this one so we have to pray that the Holy Spirit will make known the truth. Perhaps the author really believes what she writes…so let us pray for her too…

        Reply
        • This isn’t a question of what the author believes: she and her husband were told, together, by a priest who met with Pope Benedict, that Benedict had indicated this opinion of Lefebvre, and wanted his thought brought into the Church.

          Whether or not the priest is correct, and if he is, whether one agrees with Benedict on the matter, is not of consequence. She is reporting what was told to her, and there are two witnesses to the telling of it.

          Reply
          • Wouldn’t it be interesting if +Benedict reveals to the world the unrevealed part of the secret instead of the current pontiff?

          • A point I already conceded in the comment you’re responding to.

            In any eyewitness account, there is the telling of a thing and the truth of a thing. Hopefully they match up. But one can verify the telling even if one can’t verify the thing itself, and that is what two witnesses helps to establish.

          • Margaret, sorry for the off topic, but did you get Fr. Fahey’s books like you wanted from a Catholic source ?

      • I was just sitting here thinking I am going to mail a check to Steve today and how thankful I am that I found this website and also for this wonderful contributor, Mrs Hickson.

        Reply
      • In truth I think that you have a valid point. Also, if this article is true how can they justify Sister Lucia stating that all of the Third Secret had been revealed.

        Reply
          • And if you read this article it will help you realize that Sr. Lucia never ever stated that the 3rd Secret was ever revealed, but rather there are fradulent letters and attributions being circulated, created by Fr. Fox and Fr. Kondor, publicly accused of doing so and who have never defended themselves from the charge.

            http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/croncover.asp

          • So it’s all a conspiracy! Did you know Sister Lucia personally? Did you have this specific conversation with her? My guess is that your response will be NO however you most probably have a feeling or an impression based on another website and have now decided to be slanderous or even defamatory against two Priests. Priest against Priest etc – Our Lady of AKITA. In reality we live, we die and we are are judged.

            Oh well, back to mass, confession and prayer.

          • The unsigned computer written letter from Sr Lucia has long since been discredited.

            Of course there is a conspiracy involved with Fatima. People lie. It happens. Sorry if it scandalizes you. Bad folks exist. People conspire against the Church. Bad guys are inside and outside of the Church. Good, but misled folks are inside as well. It’s just reality.

            The facts and evidence for a remaining unreleased portion of the third part of the secret are overwhelming. Anyone who has actually looked at the evidence agrees. I’d bet a nickel that if you actually looked at the evidence, you’d agree too.

          • Funny that Sister Lucia wrote to a priest who had only written to her to ask her to pray for him. The response that he received from Sister Lucia was that she would pray for him and interestingly that the final attack will be an attack on the family. The priest didn’t quite understand at the time the relevance of Sister Lucia’s words. Therefore this fact trumps or even discredits the image of Sister Lucia being locked away without any communication from anyone. By the way just so that it is clear this priest became a cardinal and was at the recent Synod.

          • That’s right! It IS a Conspiracy! There’s this guy we like to call the Devil you know? Did you forget all about him?

            Have you met with Sr. Lucia? Hmmm? Can you Mr. Christopher verify for us why Sr. Lucia would all of a sudden completely contradict her years of testimony about the 3rd Secret’s content and that the Consecration was never done?

            I’m guessing your response will be NO, so now you have decided to run your mouth off and make accusations against random people on the internet without bothering to check the facts for yourself.

            But thanks for highlight the problem for us. because despite all the reassurances from everyone who is not Sr. Lucia that the Secret was fully revealed and the Consecration of Russia was done, the Vatican decided to clamp down on Sr. Lucia and absolutely NOBODY was allowed to ever speak to her to ask her to explain such glaring inconsistencies except for Cardinal Sodano who numerous people including Antonio Socci in a major expose originally begun to defend the Vatican’s position against the Fatimists saw the facts for himself and exposed the Vatican Cover up.

            Yes, I not only recommend Mass, Confession and Prayers for yourself but that if you actually care about your Church, God’s wishes and His Blessed Mother that you spend more time researching this instead of sharing the kool aid you have been indulging in.

          • It’s a beautiful day here! Thank you for your generous response.

            The only kool aid I am indulging in is truth and the truth is that this is a conspiracy fed by people with “feelings” that are not researched and result in what seems a great deal of anger and slander.

            As stated before in another post the Church belongs to Christ not me it’s his church, I am grateful to have been called to the truth and to be following the truth of the Roman Catholic faith.

            The reality of the faith remains as:

            Communion, Mass, Confession, Prayer, Baptism, Confirmation, Marriage, Holy Orders and Last Rites.

            The following link may interest you:

            http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2015/06/cardinal-what-sister-lucia-told-me.html

          • Entire books with research and references have been written. You’re attempting to ignore them on the basis on one biography you’ve read with dubious details that don’t match up with the facts and doesn’t bother to explain the discrepancies? Okay… some lover of ‘truth’ you are…

            I don’t know what the letter to Cardinal Caffaro is supposed to prove… When was it written? Considering the coverup and clamping down of Sr. Lucia happened during the latter part of John Paul II’s reign, and as your own link demonstrates his letter still had to go through her bishop as even he, a Cardinal, couldn’t directly access her, and of course had his letter screened. Given that Sr. Lucia revealed nothing about the 3rd Secret to him nor any details about the consecration which still probably never occurred depending on what date this letter was dispatched, this doesn’t really tell us anything except to prove my own point.

            Christopher, I understand that you want to defend the hierarchy and their actions to a fault, but until you go and check out the facts you cannot but help to note the grave discrepancy and the fact that the promises attributed to the Consecration never occurred and in fact have gotten worse. So either our Lady lied (unthinkable), or you join the chorus of certain people whose opinions were that Fatima was bogus (also false), or admit the obvious that the Popes didn’t consecrate Russia, with the world’s bishops but rather the world by the Pope alone. Something Lucia continuously said needed to be done according to the instructions Mary gave to her which is why it was attempted multiple times and all failed for the same reason. Does the biography you read explain this inconsistency? If not, why not? Did Sr Lucia just change her mind and make a mistake? If she could be considered reliable at all? Would God choose such an unreliable prophet? No, we are left with either Fatima is a hoax and Sr. Lucia is an agent of the devil, or the Popes did not carry out the Consecration.

            As for the 3rd Secret, one need only to note the pattern of all the 3 secrets. The first the vision of Heaven & Hell, followed by the words of Mary explaining what the children saw. The second about the end of the first World War and the beginning of the Second one which has the words of Mary explaining it. Now we get the 3rd secret, but we only have the first part – a vision of the Pope – but where are the words of Mary explaining anything? Where are her words beginning with “In Portugal the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved…”? Why did Pope Benedict XVI allude to words spoken by our Lady on his last visit to Fatima in an interview where he said in the 3rd secret …

            “That is, it is true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, it is spoken, it is seen the necessity of the passion of the Church…and therefore are the sufferings of the Church that is announced.”

            BEYOND the Vision? Where is the text beyond the vision?

            It is SPOKEN? Where are the spoken words? Who could be speaking? Except logically our Lady who is showing the children these things?

            If Pope Benedict XVI lying now? Or was he lying then as Cardinal Ratzinger whose hand was supposed tied and forced to participate by his superiors?

            Also in the past, then Cardinal Ratzinger said that the message revealed at Akita, Japan was the same as Fatima. Go read what Mary said in Akita and compare that to anything supposedly revealed in the 2000 document that alleges to be the whole 3rd Secret. The mental reservation Louie and others speak about is that as far as the architects of this cover up are concerned that the 3rd Secret was revealed (The Vision) but they didn’t see the need to give us the words of our Lady explaining it. So too if Akita’s revelation is the same as Fatima’s then Mary herself already revealed the punishments awaiting us, which many have said would cause the world to repent and fill the Churches for confession, and which was alluded to by the witnesses of the Miracle of Fatima where the Sun hurled itself at the people terrifying them which lines up with something john Paul II said that if we expected to hear about the world being burnt and being covered by water and catastrophe then we apparently already knew about the 3rd Secret, which he also alluded to in Fatima to the tail of the devil which threw down the stars of heaven, which exegesis of Scripture refers to the Devil corrupting the clergy, the lights that are supposed to lead us to Heaven.

            Are you able to explain this? Does the biography you read explain all this inconsistency? How then can you dismiss the weight of the evidence so casually as mere ‘feelings’ and accuse others of not doing enough research? If you have done the research and can answer the above questions, then please go ahead.

          • Johnno, Once again I’m going to say this regardless of who said what and whatever conspiracy exists in your mind the solution remains the same e.g. mass, confession and prayer.

            The Virgin Mary asked us to pray a rosary every day, go to adoration, go to mass, go to confession and make sacrifices and do penance, these are the real secrets that she revealed to us. These are the secrets to defeating satan and converting russia, however it seems that your posts are becoming more and more acidic in their style and prideful.

          • And I say this regardless of your attempts to deflect from the conversation to professed acts of piety.

            Your life and the lives of your loved ones are on the line here. The Mother of God is weeping and trying desperately to warn us that a great chastisement is coming and that she can no longer hold back her Son’s arm which is waiting to strike us for our disobedience.

            All the prayers, masses, confessions and prayer are useless if we are not obedient to God when He tells us something.

            The responsibility for the Consecration of Russia and the 3rd Secret do not fall on our heads, we are only the laity, however we are to make known to our Pope and Bishops that their lives are endangered and they are in danger of disobedience to God which brings great punishment on them, and subsequently to us for they are our representatives and leaders.

            Here is Christ’s command to you Christopher and us all, through Sr, Lucia:

            “Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him, they will follow him into misfortune”.”

            I recommend looking up why the Kings of France fell to the Revolution and the horrible calamities it caused upon the people for failure to Consecrate France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus as His seer commanded the King to.

            So are you going to listen to Jesus Christ, Christopher? Or will you ignore His words and His Mother’s suffering and escape solely to the refuge of mass, confession and prayer (all good things) but without doing your part to make known the Message of Fatima, particularly to those who think they can just ignore it while all the punishments prophesied through it are continually coming to fruition around us? Are you going to wait until the Pope is dead at the foot of the cross and nations are annihilated? If you’re going to pray and go to Mass, why are you not praying that the Church and pope finally obey our Lord’s command before it’s very late?

            Yes! Eventually the Pope will Consecrate Russia! But if there’s an opportunity to turn things around and escape horrible scenarios before then, then we would be idiots not to take this merciful benevolent undeserving gift from God! But we must accept it on HIS TERMS. Not the excuses of the Popes who’ve done all they could to circumvent it for reasons that are not made known to us. But only one of them can be right. The Pope. Or God Himself. I’m going with God and the established facts of the reality we observe around us which are certainly NOT the promises of the Consecration, but the result of precisely what would happen if the Consecration was delayed or never done. Who are you going to side with?

            I am taking time to respond to you in detail and expose your inconsistencies. This isn’t pride or acidity that you are accusing me of, it’s the painful truth, and you have trouble accepting this and have yet to reconcile your dubious account with the established facts. Conspiracies exist Christopher. Pretending otherwise is not an argument, it’s simply an attempt to appeal to a sadly loaded buzzword so that you can escape examining the complications.

          • If a practising Roman Catholic follows the path to salvation there isn’t a problem. I cannot believe for one moment that God abandons those that try to connect to his faith and follow the path set to us.

            I have free will and you have free will, therefore If a Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Priest or Layperson isn’t following the path of salvation it is our responsibility to set the example and to pray for them. I’m not going to go into personal detail about the situation that my family experiences from other catholics in France and I’m not bailing out on the truth of the one true faith.

            As Saint Paul said we need to stand firm in the faith.

            I’m grateful for my faith.

          • All of that is well and good, and we are all in different positions in life to do what we must.

            However, if one is going to get involved in the discussion about Fatima, then one must be prepared to deal with all of the issues around it.

            If you don’t want to, then fine, I’m sure you’ve got your own things in life to put first that are your own immediate concern, and certainly God has not placed any responsibility on you to get too involved.

            But don’t go around discouraging others who are engaged in the fight, and furthermore if you are going to spread around things known to be in doubt or erroneous (which isn’t your fault), then that bears correction.

            Whatever happens in the future will happen and your salvation doesn’t depend on how involved you were with regards to Fatima so long as you do follow the precepts of the Church, but it does help to set the right perspective with regards to what is occurring in the Church and the world right now, and therefore is worth knowing. When God goes out of his way to perform the most spectacular miracle ever seen since the time of Joshua, and then entrusts His Church with a message and task to be delivered to the entire world publicly for the sake of your salvation, then it would definitely fit the criteria of something you ought to pay attention to, especially if as John Paul II suspected, Fatima might’ve been a fulfilment of what is contained in the Book of Revelation, which is part of the Deposit of Faith, and especially if Fatima led to Pope Pius XII infallibly defining and binding you, a Catholic, to the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. Therefore Fatima is important in a way that no other apparition or private revelation is, given it’s public and prophetic character, which is precisely why God didn’t tell Sr. Lucia to tell us the 3rd Secret, but entrusted that duty to the Pope and His Church to officially make known because it is more authoritative coming from the Pope than it is from Sr. Lucia.

          • I know what is happening in his church and the world right now and am grateful for my faith. For you to make an assumption about me is quite arrogant but it is apparent that you are someone that cannot accept any view but your own, even when the evidence is provided to you e.g. Cardinal Caffara’s letter from sister Lucia. Back to mass, confession and prayer for me.

          • I have assumed nothing other than to state about you what you yourself have said, and to expose your insufficient knowledge on the matter.

            I again ask you to address what precisely you think the Cardinal Caffara letter is supposed to show me, other than of course that everything sent back and forth from Sr. Lucia was screened, that given the level of clamp-down on her he never expected a reply, and given that his letter had nothing to do with details about the 3rd Secret or the Consecration, and Sr. Lucia’s reply back to him was only with allusion to the overall battle between the Devil and Our Lady without revealing any specifics about the 3rd Secret or the Consecration… how does this refute that indeed there was a clamp-down on all communication between Sr. Lucia and an imposition of silence never to speak to anyone about the 3rd Secret or the Consecration post-2000 when all was “supposedly revealed.”

            And I accuse you instead of projecting onto me your own predisposition that you are the one “that cannot accept any view but your own.”

            I have engaged you on every thing you’ve brought up. The onus on you is to now answer or refute those discrepencies. Not run away, accuse me of stubborness and remind me of your personal acts of piety like a Pharisee praying in public.

            Me, I’m after the truth. And perhaps you may wish to know an update on this story that Benedict XVI has now denied ever speaking to Dollinger and reaffirmed his 2000 position that the publication of the 3rd Secret was done, which again contradicts what he said prior to 2000 and as recently as 2015.

            http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/05/benedict-xvi-dismisses-supposed-new.html

          • Hello Johnno, I hope that you are having a good day. Sadly here our Priest has had to deal with a sad situation in his family and we had to go to an alternative mass which could be considered to be entering the realms of Anne Catherine Emerich’s prediction.

            Saint Bernedette of Lourdes was once asked about secrets, she didn’t have any, she was pressed about the situation with Prussia at the time she was not afraid. She was asked what scares her the most she answered “Bad Catholics”. Saint Padre Pio was restricted from saying mass and hearing confessions he took this on his shoulders, he did not start attacking cardinals and bishops.

            You know that the dots are aligned for a chatisement and I will agree through a feeling or impression but our faith is not built on feelings or impressions it’s built on the rock of TRUTH however remember that from Adam and Eve, Solomon, King David and Saint Peter our humanity has failed to satisfy what God asks of us. Saint Peter denied Christ three times and was still saved, Saint Paul had a history of involvement with persecution of Christians and was still saved so in reality mass, confession, prayer and penance is how many of us can play active part in defeating the scum bag satan, the 100 years are up!

          • My previous reply at 4 a.m. disappeared but I know what is going on in the church and the world. Anne Catherine Emerich, Saint Faustine, St Michael the Archangel prayers origin, Fatima, Akita there was also Marie jahenny but I’m not sure if her writings are approved.

        • Guest has a perfectly INvalid! point. But what you say about Sister Lucia Dos Santos stating that the Third Secret was revealed in its entirety is a well known fact. I believe it was all revealed. The Third Secret cannot be glanced over, it must be read with much thought and consideration. Take the Angel with the sword in one hand and pointing to the world with the other shouting in a powerful voice “Penance! Penance! Penance!”. Shouting in a powerful voice with a sword in his hand? If we were waiting to hear of apocalyptic events, we will see it in our own lives and our loved ones lives unless we heed the Angel and do penance.

          Reply
          • Point not points, Point two in the poster’s comment is a valid point in the sense that the article could be construed as gossip against Pope Benedict the 16th.

          • Incorrect. It is not a fact that Sr. Lucia stated anything of the kind. She has only done the opposite throughout her life with regards to the Secret and the Consecration of Russia which was never done. Plenty of people have documented this evidence. This begins with the fact that nowhere in the 2000 Vatican release do you find the words SPOKEN by Our Lady that begin “In Portugal, the Dogmas of the faith will always be preserved…” This is a FACT. And it is a FACT that the Vatican 2000 alleged release does not contain this. As well Pope Benedict XVI himself on a recent trip from Fatima as the article outlined above notes, contradicted his past testimony and even himself referred to words spoken by our Lady when he declared that the prophecies of Fatima were unfolding today and refers to sin within the Church and can even be seen in the sex abuse crisis. Even Antonio Socci, who originally conducted an investigation to defend the Vatican and debunk the Fatimists was persuaded by the evidence to accuse the Vatican of a cover up instead, which can be found in his book ‘The Fourth Secret of Fatima.’ I recommend looking at all this evidence and not blindly follow the mainstream Catholic publications who defend the curia not matter what. You’d think Catholics would’ve learnt by now…

          • However in reality, expressing your opinion and using capital letters when you post the word FACT! doesn’t actually change the reality of the Roman Catholic Faith.

          • And where was I changing anything about the Catholic Faith Christopher? What are you talking about? What ‘reality’ are you even referring to?

          • Your link doesn’t work. Which Cardinal was it? If it was Bertone or Sodano, then don’t bother as various sources, notably Antonio Socci have exposed them to be liars.

          • I have based my opinions on the Biography of Sister Lucia Dos Santos written by the Nuns of the Carmelite Convent of Coimbra Portugal. In it Sister Lucia gives a chronology of the different attempts to make the Consecration by different Supreme Pontiffs. She states with all certainty that the Consecration made by St. John Paul ll on March 25, 1984 was accepted by Heaven. She further states that at that time the world was about to suffer an Atomic and Nuclear destruction of the world. The Consecration averted it. Who are we to believe, Sister Lucia or hearsay?

          • Ask yourself this John. Given that Sr Lucia is on record several times stating that the Consecration of Russia required:
            a) The Pope
            b) All the Catholic Bishops of the World in union with him.
            c) Russia as the sole object of consecration.
            d) The consecration in reparation for Russia’s specific sins and errors

            How could the 84 Consecration fulfill this given:
            a) it only involved Pope John Paul II
            b) the bishops of the world didn’t join him.
            c) it was a consecration of the world, not Russia.
            d) Russia’s sins were never mentioned.
            e) Pope John Paul II himself was recorded by his own Vatican newspaper in a prayer to be admitting that those specific people (Russia) were still awaiting the Consecration
            f) That Pope John Paul II attempted the consecration multiple times again the last being in the year 2000 because he himself didn’t think what he did was sufficient.

            Considering the other consecrations carried out before John Paul II did not meet Sr. Lucia’s criteria above which she repeatedly insisted was necessary, why would the 84 Consecration succeed for the same reasons the other ones failed?

            Furthermore, where are the promises that if the Consecration was done that we were expected to see? Why hasn’t Russia converted? Why has war only grown even more numerous in the world? Why have Russia’s sins and errors such as Communism, Marxism and anti-Catholicism continued to spread such that today we find the Western Worlds completely submerged in them?

            So who are the liars John?
            a ) Sr. Lucia?
            b) Pope John Paul II?
            c) Mother Mary?
            d) God?
            e) the Nuns of the Carmelite Convent of Coimbra Portugal?
            f) Cardinal Sodano who was chiefly responsible for this coverup and to whom all, including Sr. Lucia and the Nuns of Coimbra were under Holy Obligation to obey? And who alone was the sole communicator between the world and Sr. Lucia who was ordered to remain silent even while the VAtican was touting the Secret as ‘fully revealed’ and the 84 Consecration as sufficient?

            Perhaps instead of dismissing everything as ‘hearsy’ and believing everything you’ve read in one particular book, I encourage you to look more into the matter. Here are the facts:
            – Russia is not converted.
            – No period of Peace exists in the world anywhere.
            – The errors of Russian Communism are now adopted political, economical and social policies of all Western Governments.

            So you have to choose, either Fatima and the Virgin mother of God & Sr. Lucia were liars or the Consecration was never done according tot he precepts laid down by God and told to us by Sr. Lucia.

            Things certainly aren’t adding up according to your outlook John. And time is running out for us all.

          • No one is disputing heaven’s acceptance of ‘a’ consecration. The fact remains though that the church did not follow through on ALL of what Our Lady commanded. Russia was not mentioned , hence not all was done accordingly.

            Pius xii consecration helped end WWII but did not result in world peace, so says Lucy. That in and of itself should explain that so far, no pope has followed Her instructions , as She has asked. (BTW, where is this world peace promised by Our Lady)?

          • If what you say is true then the Carmelite Nuns from Coimbra Portugal are all liars. They wrote the Biography of Sister Lucia. Pope Benedict never contradicted himself, the contradictions are in this article. Sister Lucia gave the chronology of the Popes who attempted the Consecration and she said only the one by St. John Paul ll was accepted by heaven. Why will no one take Sister Lucia’s word for it instead of listening to all the false prophets. One will read in her official Biography what she said concerning every aspect of Fatima. What is not found there are but mere fabrications. The Biography states that Sister Lucia grew tired of having to correct all the false information concerning Fatima. The conspiracy theories must end and we must obey the Angel who gave a dire warning with a sword in his hand shouting “Penance, Penance, Penance”. If we were waiting for apocalyptic words, the Angel gave it. We will experience an apocalypse in our lives and the lives of our loved ones if we do not do penance. Why is Pope Benedict ignored in these words of his concerning Penance.

          • Yes John, either the Sisters of Coimbra are liars or they are themselves deceived, or they have been coerced into putting out such shady revisionist history by particular persons in power who wish to see Fatima buried.

            “‘Enlighten especially the peoples of which, You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding.” – Pope John Paul II, after consecrating the world on March 25,1984, acknowledged before about 250,000 people in prayer at St. Peter’s Square.

            Sister Lucy was asked if the Pope fulfilled the request made by Our Lady at Tuy whenhe consecrated the world on March 25, 1984.

            Sister Lucy answered: ‘There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia.’

            The interviewer then asked, ‘So the consecration was not done as requested by Our Lady?’

            Sister Lucy answered: ‘No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.’” – in the September 1985 issue of Sol de Fatima

            Here is some free information for you to look up and contrast it with the biography you read, see if you can discern who is telling the truth:

            Chronology of a Cover Up
            http://www.fatima.org/essentials/opposed/croncover.asp

            Conditions for the Consecration of Russia
            http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/frhess.asp

          • You’d think that Lucy would’ve been present at that 2000 event when the secret was ‘divulged’, to further illustrate and drive home that fact, wouldn’t you?

        • This is a SATANIC LIE. Sr. LUCIA actually said the opposite !! It was Sec. of State, Cardinal Sodano, and his subsequent replacement, Cardinal Bertone who propagated this LIE. Actually, Sr. Lucia was SILENCED for 45 years, from 1960 to 2005, the year she died, and could not speak to ANYONE on the subject. Not EVEN HER Jesuit CONFESSOR and Spiritual Director, Fr. Aparicio from 1926 to 1938, could talk to her!!!!! Now this is a prime EXAMPLE of the kind of JUSTICE, LOVE and MERCY as executed by the POWERS controlling the Vatican apparatus during that sad, sad time. Now you have a glimpse of the kind of CATHOLICISM AS PRACTICED BY THE HIGH PRELATES OF THE TIME !! ” The smoke of Satan has entered the Church” since 1960, the year the 3rd. Secret was supposed to be divulged publicly, as Our Lady asked.

          Reply
      • The novus ordo is luther’s mass. The freemason creator of the novus ordo, annabale bugnini, got it from the lutherens and then dressed it up to look catholic. don’t believe me, go to a lutheren service. i have been to one. the vatican II church is the false counter church that blessed anne catherine emmerich spoke about in her Church approved prophecies in the 1820’s.

        Reply
        • I remember it well. You are absolutely right. It is the watered down version much like the catholic mass.

          Reply
      • With all due respect does your ignorance come to you naturally or do you practice to perfect it? You are profoundly misinformed. We will pray for you.

        Reply
      • It’s difficult to understand how a mass that was in force for hundreds of years is now somehow schismatic. I would remind you that Pope Benedict taught that the pre-Vatican II mass is valid and is available to any priest who wishes to say it.

        Reply
      • Wrong the Novus Ordo mass that replaced the True Mass, the Tridentine Latin Mass, is gravely evil. I will not ever attend that filthy Satanic imitation mass.

        Reply
        • And this again is why you are a tool of the devil…filled with filthy satanic hatred…beware, your soul is in danger.

          Reply
      • Jesus said: ” FROM THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM”. The FIRST fruit !? of the ‘INNUMERABLE DISASTERS’ of the EVIL Vat. Council II , was that within 10 years of the Council, 55,000 PRIESTS LEFT THE CHURCH !! Second fruit !? was that by the year 2000, ‘120,000 PRIESTS LEFT THE CHURCH’. THIRD fruit!? was that PRESENTLY ONLY 1 in 6 of the ‘NOMINAL’ Catholics still go to Church on SUNDAY !! That’s 190 millions out of 1200 Millions ! FOURTH fruit !? In America and Europe, the Vocations to the Priesthood was ZILCH !! FIFTH fruit !? was that WOMEN Religious have PRACTICALLY DISAPPEARED from the Church given that PRIOR to the Council, they numbered in the HUNDREDS of Thousands !! I think I should stop here because I would need A BOOK LENGTH to list all the DISASTERS in the Church following the Council. God please OPEN the eyes of those poor faithful who are blindly deceived by the wiles of the Devil helped by the APOSTATE high ranking prelates in the Church. A Pope PUBLICLY KISSED the QURAN, a most blasphemous wretched book, and even prayed to St. John the Baptist to safeguard ISLAM !!!!!!!! Need to say any more? NO. God bless all who are HUMBLE and of GOOD WILL.

        Reply
      • @Guest
        This is a silly and childish response. The TLM is not schismatic because Pope (Benedict) has said it no longer is! His authority. End of story. Can you read?

        Neither is the Novus Ordo Mass satanic. They are two variations of the one Mass. Neither is anybody attacking Benedict – least of all his lifelong friend Dollinger. It’s just silly stuff.

        Moreover it is patently obvious to anyone with half-a-brain that the fraudulent/satanic Cardinal Sodano manufactured his own “interpreted” 3rd Secret for issue to the public. What is unclear is why Benedict approved its dissemination.

        There is loads of valid information about this – including from Fr. Gruner, Fr. Gobbi, St. Pio, other priests/bishops who’ve seen the 3rd secret/letter, the nun Sr. Lucia who experienced the apparitions in 1917 – AND who disputed Sodano’s publication. It was not about the attempted assassination of JP2. Recall that Gruner was illegally suspended “a divinis” by these apostate cardinals and not by the Pope.

        The message from the stigmatist nun in Akita 1973 is essentially the same as Fatima (Benedict himself said so).

        This describes the apostasy at the highest levels in the Catholic Church (bishops and cardinals against other bishops and cardinals); the falling away from the faith by ordinary Catholics (nobody could disagree with this); the prolonged and bloody attack on Rome and Italy (probably ISIS aided by the Russian communists), the flight of the Pope from Rome; the actual assassination of the Pope and other religious (probably in Jerusalem) and the ensuing of a Russian-led WW3 (possibly nuclear) and a divine chastisement – 3 days darkness and the comet or “fire from heaven”.

        The Fatima/Akita messages are all backed up by Revelation, Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, La Salette, Divine Mercy apparitions, etc. None of it is set in stone however as prayer and penance can (and apparently already has) mitigated some of this chastisement (although not removed it completely).

        I forgot to mention the dedication of Russia (alone) to the Immaculate Heart which as Gruner advocated, has still has not occurred. This is why we are witnessing a resurgent communist regime with a KGB Colonel now as Russian President. He has now 3 times threatened to use the Soviet’s nuclear arsenal on the West.

        Just *last week* Putin installed in Siberia, the largest 750 Kiloton nuclear missile ever manufactured with a 10 000 km range and 15 individual warheads onboard. That’s 15 cities gone in one hit. Last week.

        Need we say more?

        However…we can all thank our lucky stars, that there will be a divine warning then a healing miracle before any of this happens. It’s the last chance for the world to reduce the prophesied punishment.

        Reply
      • It’s really important to know that the SSPX are the only ones that preserved the link with Tradition. The SSPX is not schismatic. The SSPX gets jurisdiction from Canon Law because the Church is in a state of emergency.

        Reply
      • Well done! I have read your post, – because it is so BIG!
        I don’t agree with you – and Fr Hesse, the great Canon Lawyer certainly disagrees with you. There is far less damage done from an authentic Liturgical Mass Celebration as decreed by the Concilliar documents of St Pius V (Trent – who Canonised the Tridentine Mass) – than in the pagan setting of the Novus Ordo illicit rite (none-Canonised – hear Fr Hesse speak on Youtube)

        By the way? La Salette told us that “Rome will lose the Faith and become the Seat of the Antichrist” text 1846 – Imprimitur Bishop of Lecce. A French mystic by the name of Marie Julie Jahenny (visited by Pope Pius XII) was told by Our Lord that “A New Mass” was to be constructed of great anger to Him…..

        “November 27, 1902 and May 10, 1904

        “I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of Souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in my sight. When the fatal hour arrives when the faith of my priests is put to the test, it will be (these texts) that will be celebrated in this second period.

        The First period is the one of my priesthood which exists since Me. The second is the one of the persecution when the enemies of the Faith and of Holy Religion will impose their formulas in the book of the second celebration. These infamous spirits are those who crucified Me and are awaiting the kingdom of the NEW MESSIAH!”

        http://www.communityofhopeinc.org/Prayer%20Pages/Saints/marie%20julie.html

        Be reasonable? YOU are not very sensible. There is now considerable evidence that Our Lord’s requests have been ignored during several Pontificates. That is a far greater crime against Him – already quite a few broken Commandments. (including “Bearing false witness” ) The first Commandment has been broken as well, it is therefore reasonable that the SSPX Mission may have been sent by God. Never judge somebody unworthy of your good opinion, as the hurt rupturing 2000 years of Unity of Our Lord’s Flock, that has been caused by the Novus Ordo Schism, will be lessened by the Society who chose to remain with Tradition and remained faithful.

        By the way, who is it that you are accusing the SSPX of being in Schism with?

        You perhaps?

        Reply
    • It did not take an apparition from Our Lady to tell us of a bad Council and a bad Mass. It is obvious. Before the Council ended 350 Council Fathers gathered at night in the Catacombs of St. Domitilla in Rome. There they signed an agreement of the plots they planned for when the Council ended. The very Council Fathers are the ones who began the destruction of the Church. Other Holy Council Fathers tried to stop the catastrophe but were not too successful.

      Reply
    • While we wait for the response, can you enlighten us as to what the difference would be? When reading the words, “bad mass and bad council,” my first thought is how bad? Bad as in not ideal, or bad as in invalid.

      Reply
      • Whereas the German “böse” can mean either “bad” or “evil”, depending upon context (typically moral), “schlecht” is simply “bad” (typically qualitative). It could have also been something like “übel” (“bad” as in “noxious”) or perhaps “verdorben” (“bad” as in “rotten”), or a number of other words, all of which can be translated by the English “bad” and all of which have their own shade of meaning. Given that it’s such a key phrase in the whole discussion, I’d love to read it in the original.

        Reply
  8. In his book “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” Antonio Socci uses public information, some private conversations and rigorous analysis to arrive at essentially this same position.

    Reply
      • Maybe you are right. Don´t know. I just think that it would be the most powerful statement. Leaving to a catholic place, to a monastery, maybe in Poland or Hungary. Now Rome is like the abomination of desolation standing in the Holy Place. Maybe is time to run to the mountains. I don´t know what to think. I don´t know what to do. This is so confusing…

        Reply
        • If ever a man was and is a mystery wrapped inside an enigma, it is Joseph Ratzinger, Pope (Emeritus) Benedict XVI. I came into the Church during his Pontificate and admired him greatly. The more I learn, though, and as events unfold, his path from Vatican II peritus to abdicating Pope raises ever more questions.
          Fatima was a private revelation which included a widely-witnessed phenomenon the Vatican approved as credible (miracle of the sun.) I cannot square 1) belief in the supernatural nature of Fatima with 2) Pope Benedict’s failure to repudiate Vatican II and his exclusive public celebration of the OF if he believed that Our Lady warned of a ‘bad Council and a bad Mass.’
          PBXVI always “supported” Vatican II and the new Mass. He still does, as far as we know. How to explain that, if he read and believed that the Blessed Virgin actually appeared- and said what Father Dollinger claims he said?
          I agree that J. Ratzinger, Pope (Emeritus), should speak. All the previous Popes, reigning from 1960 onward, have gone to their judgment. BXVI abandoned his office and will not speak. I still love him despite it all. But I agree that a penitential life in a monastery would be fitting for our enigmatic former Papa, since it seems he refuses still to help us in our great confusion and need.

          Reply
          • Thank you. I learn so much at this site and I’m grateful for the writers and commenters. Many of us are isolated from real-life people who share our concerns; this ‘place’ helps me clarify my own thoughts, and to feel somewhat less alone.

          • All the Popes since Vatican II were Modernists, including Benedict. If he doesn’t stir himself for the sake of Christ’s faithful then he will die a Modernist & history will not be as kind to him as his followers to-day who keep making excuses for him. He had a lot of input in his younger days into Vatican II and often appeared wearing civvies which was shocking for a priest at the time. He may have become more relaxed when he became Pope but nevertheless did not step up to the plate and preserve TLM by ordering it to be said at least once a week in all parishes, leaving that decision up to the local NO Bishops who used their power to ban it.

          • That would be fine if there were such places to attend. If the news that the SSPX is being regularised without strings attached is true then it is an answer to our prayers. There will not then be any excuse for their lack of public presence within Europe and God willing the people will flock there.

        • according to Fatima when benedict Flees to Germany or Polant etc..( without the swiss guard) he will be captures and killed ( dying as a mayter)…….then the anti-christ comes on the scene…get ready….probaby a good idea to start wearing your brown and green scapular,and saying the rosary…time is short…………of course in the end the immaculate heart will triump and the Consecration of Russia would be late………we we are late now…..if benedict does the consecration than it is over we win, or if benedict does the 5th marian dogma ( Mary as Co-redemptrix and Meadiatrix and Advocate)

          Reply
          • False, you’re missing an entire chapter with the three days of darkness, the Great Monarch and Holy pontiff and promised period of peace after which.. the anti Christ comes.

          • Excuse me, but that’s from a book of ‘prophecy’ by Yves Dupont.
            Why would anyone believe such things ?

          • Yes Bendys and from “Trial Tribulation, and Triumph” and “A Christian Trumpet” and Marie Julie Jahenny, and the Cure D’ars, Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich,and many more Catholic saints. There is nothing wrong with Catholic Prophecy beyond a couple of prophecies which he put next to each other that should have been separated.. DuPont included Nostradamus only to show how his prophecies said the same things. Also Nostradamus was a devout Catholic. So not sure why you’re trying to imply there is something wrong with the long published book by Tan.

          • Nostradamus was a crypto-Jew and a Kabbalist. The less about him, the better.
            And Dupont is not Revelation.
            Nobody knows the hour except the Father.

          • If he was a jew is speculation and most often by jews. Nobody knows the date or the hour…of our Lord’s return, all prophecy you think is dismissed with this? That’s rich, why are you even on this story commenting?

          • Fair point…I agree with you…but the 3 days of darkness is not going to be a picnic, or the global conscience exam is a posibillity here with you… …theses 2 events are supposed to happen between march and may on a thursday friday and saturday…and the global conscience exam is on a feast day associated with the eucharist in the same time period..between march and may…so maybe next year?

      • The fact that he as Pope did not use his power to defrock deviant priests, Bishops, Cardinals & religious makes him (and JPII) as culpable as those carrying out these heinous deeds against children & seminarians. He should face the music.

        Reply
        • Well, pope Francis can punish all those evil-doers, what’s stopping him ?
          Oh, wait.. I forgot..
          He kisses their feet.

          Reply
      • Pope Benedict is the pope i believe Bl. Anne Catherine Emmerich was pleading with NOT to leave the vatican.

        Reply
    • If he were to leave the Vatican, he would be subject to the many people who wish to file lawsuits against him for the abuse scandals, amongst other things. He could be subject to many things which, by retaining some aspect of the papacy in his resignation, he is now protected within the walls. He would also lose the protection of the Swiss Guard. Yet another mystery of the Faith…

      Reply
      • He who abdicates the Papacy retains some unidentified part of the papacy?

        When Edward VII abdicated what part of the kingship did he retain?

        Reply
  9. It looks as though, however slowly, the memory of Abp Lefebvre is going to be vindicated.

    What is not so good is, that if the Church was told an untruth that was said to be true about the Third Secret – why should one believe what we are told now ? It too might be a lie. As for not being told the whole Secret, because it is too frightening – what in creation could be that frightening ? Nothing at all ! One can be sure that is so, because Our Lord tells His disciples to fear God alone.

    Reply
    • It can hardly be more frightening than what we have been through & are still suffering. At least if we heard the truth as spoken by Our Blessed Lady we could spiritually ready ourselves (which most Traditionalist do anyway but others are ignoring the need for) and the fact they did not pass on this message as told to in the 60s is tantamount to betrayal of Christ & His Blessed Mother. How can they expect to retain any semblance of trust? If the SSPX are regularised it will be because the time has come to restore the CC to Tradition, get rid of Modernism in all its guises, consecrate Russia and bring about Our Lady’s triumph.

      Reply
    • I think frightening for those who have been championing a new springtime and a new orientation for fifty years.

      “I saw all sorts of people, things, doctrines, and opinions. There was something proud, presumptuous, and violent about it, and they seemed to be very successful. I did not see a single Angel nor a single saint helping in the work. But far away in the background, I saw the seat of a cruel people armed with spears, and I saw a laughing figure which said: ‘Do build it as solid as you can; we will pull it to the ground.'” — Ven. Anne Catherine Emmerich

      Reply
      • That could be a good description of a lot of pictures of the building of the Tower of Babel. Thanks for explaining 🙂

        Reply
  10. Unfortunately, if you were to pass this info to the staunch believers that the 3rd Secret was released in whole and it was just about JPII getting shot, they wouldn’t believe this because it comes second-hand. If Benedict would come out *directly* and said it, it would be a different story.

    Reply
  11. Great piece! But of course it invites obvious questions, or rather re-invites them:

    Why did Ratzinger/Benedict not publicly reveal what he knew? Given the awfulness in the current Church–which must have seemed even worse to him given what he knew about the unrevealed secret–why did he then step down? Why does he not announce a press conference now and reveal the rest of the third secret, instead of having beer reunions with his buddies? I am of course not being critical of Benedict per se; only noting the obvious incongruity. It’s as if there’s a fourth secret (or a fifth) that asks the good guys in the know to act their parts in a sort of play, biding their time. Why? Until when? And of course everyone seems to be following some sort of tacit agreement to not go public (though it seems okay to give the occasional hint to Father Gruner or whomever).

    I do not think I will ever become a sede or go back to being a non-practicing quasi-agnostic, but this almost seems calculated to make me throw up my hands and do so. Is it some sort of test of faith? And what of the countless souls lost in the interim?

    Yes, I know mortal men are not supposed to know everything. God never promised that we would or should. But He did promise that we would be given ENOUGH information. Didn’t He?

    Reply
    • God gave us enough information, but he also gave us (and those in charge of the Vatican) free will. The Holy Father needs to reveal the Third Secret ASAP and if he won’t, then Benedict XVI should do it.

      Reply
    • Pope Emeritus Benedict may not have revealed such a part of the secret, if it exists, for several reasons. Knowing how the Church works, he could easily be declared mentally unfit, batty, senile… which would call many his theological statements into question, and ruin his legacy… including Summorum Pontificum. And I’m not even a conspiracy theorist! That’s just how the Church is able to work, with some of the progressive, power hungry thugs who pass as Priests (God forgive me.)

      Reply
      • Pope Benedict probably realized that the Novus Ordo Mass was too well established by 2005 to be discredited and discarded, which would have been the logical conclusion of releasing the entire Third Secret. The fans of the NO Mass were and are very well entrenched, and as you said, any revelations that it is deficient or contrary to God’s will would have unleashed a firestorm of opposition against Pope Benedict. Ironically, he ended up being replaced in the end anyhow.

        Reply
        • But did not Benedict say that the Church was going to grow smaller, that it was going to be reduced to a faithful remnant? Then why all this fear of a “firestorm of opposition”? Why not just let them storm? If they stamp their feet and throw a fit and walk out, why not just let them?

          Reply
          • You bring up a good point; Release the truth and let the chips fall where they may. I think that since Vatican II the popes have been scared to death of sparking a schism that would tear the Church apart. Popes Paul VI, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI tolerated a lot of crap from heterodox elements within the Church hierarchy in an effort to keep the peace and maintain unity. Now we have a situation in Europe, especially Germany, in which most of the prelates are already in an objective state of disobedience in matters of dogma and doctrine. Perhaps it would have been better to bring things to a head 10, 20, 30 years ago in order to “clean house” of all the modernists.

      • If +Benedict made sure everyone knew the secret, wouldn’t it drive catholics to the confessional? You know, scared s#!@less?

        Reply
      • THE CHURCH IN GETHSEMANE

        ———————————————–

        The Ship of Peter is torn apart
        Martyred in its Holy Teaching
        It sinks and sinks, no work of art
        The bottom though never reaching

        Dissidents are screaming loud
        Leaving behind an awful niff
        Pretending to be proudly stout
        Gearing the Ship into a cliff

        Jesus shows His wounded Heart
        Smitten with a deadly dart
        Peter the Rock in desolation
        Deploring severe desecration

        Wake up, you Christian Brother
        Show now your truthful face
        With Mary our Heavenly Mother
        We’ll reach that Peaceful Place

        In allegiance to the Holy Father
        United in prayer and fasting
        No victory will claim, but rather
        Satan’s defeat be everlasting.

        Rita Biesemans, 01-02-2011

        IN 2011 THE HOLY FATHER WAS STILL BENEDICT XVI

        Reply
      • If he was worried about his legacy then he was an unworthy Pope because the Papacy is never about him personally.

        A Pope is Our Sweet Jesus on earth and did Jesus sorry about being called a drunk, a fool, a tool of satan etc?

        Reply
        • My point was meant that, were he to be pronounced senile or as having dementia, which could easily be pronounced… then his writings would be called into question, and Summorum Pontificum could be repealed, possibly, based on his being senile when he wrote it. If the story is true, then he no doubt wanted the TLM back for a reason, and wouldn’t want to jeopardize it’s implementation. I have no clue why Benedict resigned, it’s unheard of, strange, and bizarre at best.

          Reply
          • Dear Fr. Kenneth, the reason Benedict resigned, something which happened some 600 years ago, was that he was asked/forced to do so so that the final onslaught on the church would be carried out by the APOSTATE PRELATES OF THE CHURCH IN/OUT OF THE VATICAN. Do we need any more glaring evidence than what is being done by this present PONTIFICATE??? I have been aware of this revelation by Fr. Ingo Dollinger for some years AND THERE IS MORE TO THIS REVELATION when he went to the seminary in South America. How could Benedict speak his true mind KNOWING that he was surrounded by so many WOLVES, MASONIC WOLVES! who are running the church now. Where there is confusion and darkness there is the footprint of the LIAR OF OLD. Satan, through his Masonic friends inside and outside the Vatican have succeeded, so far, in KEEPING SECRET the FULL 3RD. SECRET OF FATIMA because it would confirm EXACTLY what Fr. Dollinger and Benedict shared in their private meeting. Also, Satan, helped by his MASONIC minions, succeeded so far to PREVENT the Popes and Bishops to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, for almost 100 years!! LOOK at what’s GOING ON PRESENTLY IN THIS EVIL WORLD! And worst things will happen in the VERY NEAR FUTURE. PRAY and PRAY and PRAY some more to OUR LADY for Her Intercession to MINIMIZE the coming CHASTISEMENTS, both Spiritual and Material. HOW MANY AUTHENTIC CATHOLICS ARE LEFT IN THE WORLD OUT OF 1.2 billions??

          • Exactly RIGHT.SUE. Pope Paul VI Himself admitted that ” The SMOKE OF SATAN has entered the church”. And HOW !! Let us KEEP THE FAITH OF OLD steadfastly because we are and will continue to be TESTED for it. With the help of Mary we will be TRUE to JESUS and His AUTHENTIC CATHOLIC CHURCH. GOD BLESS all of GOOD WILL.

          • Not very many real Catholics left. In fact I believe to even attend the blasphemous Novus Ordo Mass is Anti Catholic and a grave sin.

          • Yes you *might* have a point but SHOUTING!!! does not make you more right. Could you please refrain from doing this.

            We also know that JP1 was very interested in Fatima. Certain of these Masonic cardinals knew this.

            We know that he wanted to perform the Immaculate Heart consecration of Russia. We know that he was assassinated with poison 4 weeks after his inauguration.

            He was found at 4.45am by his housekeeper nun who was sworn to silence (but later revealed disturbing contradictions to the official Vatican press releases. The embalmers were called and arrived by 5am. JP1 was embalmed the very same day. No blood nor organs were allowed to be removed from his body.

            Thus the Immaculate Heart consecration which might have occurred never did.

          • Dear Damien, Point 1) Could you please advise as to how one can put some emphasis on a special point to underscore its TRUTH and IMPORTANCE? Point 2) When J.P. I was ASSASSINATED by TWO CLERICS inside the Vatican, the powers to be in the Vatican FORBID to have an autopsy on the Pontiff’s Body!! What does this suggest to you? That he died of NATURAL causes? OR …..

          • Our Sweet Jesus on Earth is old school reference; St Catherine of Siena.

            Tha aside, review Vatican 1 and remained your own self of the teaching that Jesus makes judgments through the Papacy.

            So, when we have a Pope who refuses to judge, we are denied the judgment of Jesus

          • Chapter 2.

            On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

            1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

            2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].

          • Well, one point is we are denied Jesus’ judgment on moral matters when Franciscus refuses to judge

          • A man can be Pope, and be an unprincipled scoundrel of worthless character. Sad to say, unredeemed villainy is not grounds for denying a man is Pope. My candidate for worst. Pope. evah ? Stephen VI 896-7. AKA the Pope Who Put His Predecessor’s Remains On Trial: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

      • Would your reasons Father still be valid if the “secrets” were released in the actual letters written and not published or revealed without those letters? IMO, which is obviously in need of much more information, if it is truly believed that the third secret speaks of a “bad Mass”, and it is believed to be the present NO, I would think that the Vatican would release the secret together with a statement that the TLM would be reinstituted as quickly as possible. I cannot fathom that Benedict would not have immediately banned the NO so that further bad Masses could not be said. To continue to have so-called bad Masses celebrated would be a monumental sin. Frankly, I doubt the entire story.

        Reply
        • My reasons are mere speculation about mere speculation. However, I doubt the Pope Emeritus’ friends would lie, or make up stories about things he said. Also, I have to admit that I don’t really understand your first sentence.

          Reply
      • Thank you Father! I have thought of that myself! I think there are more than just ‘some’ progressive power hungry thugs….but many! My charism as a secular discalced Carmelite is to pray for priests….and I do so passionately! Thank you for being a priest for us and giving us Jesus! But all this is making sense…as I read more and more about it!

        Reply
  12. It’s not clear yet if ‘bad council’ and ‘bad Mass’ is Fr Dollinger’s short hand for what Benedict said or Benedict’s short hand for what Our Lady said or Our Lady’s actual words. In any event Our Lady of Good Success was explicit in her prophecies about the future hierarchy and the fate of the sacraments. Thank you as always Maike for this piece.

    Reply
  13. I hope you know this whole page is total confusion for someone to understand who isn’t an expert on fatima! Has all of the third secret been revealed or not? Why not if it hasn’t? one post says it was suppose to be revealed by 1960, but another person says not to all. Is there anyway to find out what is really going on for an non expert like me to know????

    Reply
  14. The seer herself, Sister Lucia, affirmed that the entire third secret was published by the Vatican. This is from Father Andrew Apostoli’s book on Fatima (p.265):

    “We have additional proof from Sister Lucia that the photocopy of the Third Secret was authentic. She met again with Archbishop Bertone on November 17, 2001. A communique about that meeting carried this most important point:

    With reference to the third part of the secret of Fatima, [Sister Lucia] affirmed that she had attentively read and meditated upon the booklet published by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith [The Message of Fatima] and confirmed everything that was written there. To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden, she replied: “everything has been published; no secret remains.” To those who speak and write of new revelations, she said: “There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations, I would have told no one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father.” [5]

    Everything breaks down if you accuse the seer of deception.

    Tom

    Reply
      • I found this at Wikipedia:

        “In early September 2007, archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla, private secretary to Pope John XXIII, who witnessed Pope John open the envelope of the third secret, said there was no truth in the rumor that the Vatican was suppressing a vision of the end of the world. “There are not two truths from Fatima and nor is there any fourth secret. The text which I read in 1959 is the same that was distributed by the Vatican.” Capovilla is also quoted as saying, “I have had enough of these conspiracy theories. It just isn’t true. I read it, I presented it to the Pope and we resealed the envelope.”[42]

        See also p.267 of Fatima For Today by Father Apostoli where he addresses this issue in the same manner as the Wikipedia quote above.

        Tom

        Reply
        • The thing is, there are people who want to suppress the Fatima message, so of course you can find quotes like you present. If you dig in a little deeper though, all reason points to the fact that something is missing. For example, there were two envelopes, not one. Even Mother Angelica thought that we didn’t get the whole secret.

          Reply
    • Likewise, it was announced by some at the Vatican that Sister Lucia had also said that the consecration had been done as Our Lady requested. Yet, Our Lady said that Russia would be converted and that there would be a period of peace. “Everything breaks down” then because we would have to accuse Our Lady of deception. Have we had this period of peace? Has Russia converted? I have been to Russia 4 times and I do not see any great evidence of this conversion. I agree that every time a pope makes a consecration or “entrustment” God rewards this in some way yet the consecration was never done exactly as Our Lady requested. I have been reading the materials published by the people associated with Father Gruner at fatima.org, their explanations of Sister Lucia’s statements are more plausible than what are found in Father Apostoli’s book and the only way to that Our Lady’s comments make any sense.

      Reply
      • On Russia, the enemy disagrees (see pic below), and I do too. Changes in Russia occurring after the consecration of “the whole world, especially the peoples for which by reason of their situation [Our Lady has] particular love and solicitude” by Pope St. John Paul II on March 25, 1984, “united with all the pastors of the Church in a particular bond [constituting] a body and a college.” The enemy intended to subdue the whole world in 3 world wars, culminating in the “universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer brought finally out in the public view” (Cf. Albert Pike quoted in “Pawns in the Game” by Commander William Guy Carr), and we have seen only two, and Russia is no longer playing ball. That’s a conversion!

        Reply
        • Only makes sense if Russia=only Russian government=government of only one person=Putin. I rather expected a little more from Our Lady and if the blessings were somewhat abbreviated then perhaps the consecration was somewhat abbreviated or altered. Also, I fail to see the peace that Our Lady spoke of. I do have to thank Putin, however, for the situation in which about the only head of state that is active and vocal in supporting Middle Eastern Christians and other ethnicities in the face of genocide is a former KGB agent. Also, I don’t see him mandating transgender bathrooms in Russian schools.

          Reply
          • …and I’m sure the Blessed Virgin didn’t mean the conversion of Russia meant the conversion to schismatics.

          • Putin was a mid-level data analyzer for the KGB in East Germany. Calling him an agent makes it sound like he was some high up KGB thug. A lot of people mistakenly think that Putin headed up the KGB. For more on Putin read Boyd Cathey’s article, “Examining the Hatred of Putin…”

            The demonization of Putin is based on lies, and we know who the Prince of Lies is.

          • “Putin” has “Put” his faith “In” Jesus and no more in the KGB.
            an example for our “no”bama.

    • Sorry to tell you that that sister Lucia you are taking about was a fake one. According to sources she was killed around 1947.

      Reply
      • I’ve heard and seen reports concerning this very possibility. The photos of Sr. Lucy in earlier life compared to those taken years later reveal an undeniable incongruence in facial features, etc. I’ve also understood that she had been very adamant about the fact that the consecration of Russia HAD NOT been carried out as Our Lady had requested. It wasn’t only until after that “strange” period in the 80’s when she started making appearances and contradicting earlier testimonies. Anything is possible I suppose. Bella Dodd proved as much.

        Reply
      • In the early days of the internet, I happened to come upon the website of the Coimbra Carmelite convent where Sr. Lucia was supposed to be living. I was stunned to find her name among those who have died in 1948.

        Years later, I discovered the website Tradition in Action and one of its readers reported what I had earlier read in the Coimbra website. That means I was not imagining things.

        So I went back to the Coimbra convent website to check it out. But Sr. Lucia’s name among the dead was gone.

        Later I read somewhere that listing her name among the dead must have been a mistake, because the year 1948 was when Sr. Lucia supposedly transferred from the Dorothean Sisters to the Carmelites. I could not believe this explanation. How could any registrar mistake a nun who came to live in your convent for someone who has died?

        If Sr. Lucia did die in 1948, who then was that Sr. Lucia who died a few years ago?

        To this day, I remain very confused of all these things.

        Reply
      • The chubby-cheeked, smiling lady billed as “Sr. Lucy” the Carmelite, is NOT the thin-faced Dorothean sister with the crooked teeth who, btw, looks just like the child Lucy.

        Reply
        • But, but…there is ample evidence that Sister Lucy had a long conversation with Cardinal Albino Luciano in 1977 or 78 and told him that he would become Pope and have a short reign. He was a changed man following that meeting. We know that JP1 was murdered. It would have to have been the real Sister Lucy. There does nevertheless seem to be 2 Sister Lucys.

          Reply
          • that weirdo who wore lipstick and kissed JP2 the awesome’s hand right after communion most definitely is NOT the real Sister (Saint) Lucia.

          • I think I would agree. But I don’t submit to the theory that the real Sister Lucy was bumped off in 1948. I think that she was still around in 1977/8.

          • Sr. Lucy’s relatives were able to see her privately throughout her life. Her cousins and sister seeing her in the 80’s and onward. That Lucy died in 1947 is nonsense. She died in 2005, that is why the Vatican was so quick to seal up her room and confiscate all her property, writings, and journals in that room.

          • I kind of agree. But the two pictures of Sister Lucia are not the same. There must be something fishy here.

          • I agree. But nevertheless there does appear to be two pictures of the same person which cannot be reconciled. Just saying

    • Fr Gruner said their was an imposter of Sr Lucia….so look up Fr Gruner and his assertions on this…the Modernists Cardinal like Cardinal Bertoni…are behind this…I presume the freemasons as well are behind this.

      Reply
      • Fr. Gruner did not believe in the two Sr. Lucies theory. He believed the real Sr. Lucy died in 2005. He did not believe in a fake Sr. Lucy. That has been spread by other people, not by Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center.

        Reply
        • Gruner did believe in a fake Sr Lucy I have followed him for years…especially that bull crap put out by Bertoni with an interview with sr lucy….that was definitly a fake sr lucy.

          Reply
          • I’ve followed Fr. Gruner for years too. Been getting the Fatima Crusader for a decade. Been following all his Fatima conferences for a decade. Never saw him push the fake Sr. Lucy story in his writings or conferences.

          • the interview that Cardinal Bertoni ( the modernist) has with sr Lucy is the incident I am talking about..when I get some time to research i will post ……Cardinal Bertoni is the head modernist freemasonic shrill behind the whole false narritaive

          • Did you watch the video? Fr. Gruner discussed the theory of a fake Sr. Lucy and stated he did not believe in it. Throughout the video he talked about how the real Sr. Lucy was meeting relatives and doing interviews until she was silenced after 1989. He said it was beyond ridiculous that Sr. Lucy died in the 40’s or 60’s.

          • yes I watched the video, the problems started July 1st 1989 when Sodano and Bertone used computer generated paper to say Sr lucy said the consecration was done…Sr Lucy did not use a computer so this is evidence of action by Bertoni and Sodano to lie about the consecration…toward the end of Lucy’s life Bertoni and Sodano even used an imposter of Lucy to do Bertoni bidding and to say the consecration was done…..Sr Lucy was totally silenced so she could not defend herself. So the problems did not start until 1989.

          • Fr. Gruner said it was not likely that there was a second fake Sr. Lucy like you have been claiming. The claim that Sr. Lucy died and there was a second fake Sr. Lucy running around. Fr. Gruner believed that the real Sr. Lucy was alive and died in 2005.

      • Greener was suspended a divinis for disobedience…

        The Seer Lucy was obedient

        Thus, Gruener was believable in what he said but Lucy wasn’t.

        Reply
    • That 2001 interview of Sr. Lucy is very suspect, because there was no transcript, audio, or visual recording of the interview. Just Cardinal Bertone’s “summary” of a 2 hour conversation. Not very credible. That was Cardinal Bertone manipulating the information.

      Reply
  15. Quick question. My mother, born in 41 says that as a kid in the fifties, she remembers that the Mass wasn’t always in Latin. That the 3-4 Masses offered on Sundays, only one was the TLM. Is she remembering correctly? She’s very liberal, and I’ve just gotten her to start going back to Mass, but she won’t go with me to the TLM. She was from the Detroit area if that matters. Thanks.

    Reply
    • I was wondering too. As a little kid I remember the Eucharistic prayer, for example, in the 60’s as always being in English. I remember the priest listing “Linus,Cletus” and etc. all in English, the entire Eucharistic prayer. Sometime in the late 60’s they pulled out the altar rails, changed the Mass some, including giving an option for various Eucharistic prayersm and had us give the sign of peace, etc.. The first time I went to the traditioinal Latin Mass it did not seem exactly like the Mass of my childhood before the Novus Ordo Mass. Were there changes to the liturgy and widespread use of the vernacular before the Novus Ordo? All, I know is that what I grew up with was a lot more reverent and less awkward and yet was mostly in English. I prefer the Maronite Liturgy which is in Aramaic and English to the local Roman Rite Mass. Pius XII allowed for more widespread use of the vernacular but also cautioned; “I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This
      persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a
      divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her
      liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. … I hear all around me innovators
      who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of
      the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her
      historical past.

      Reply
      • There was a new Missal in 1964, and another in 1966. Each one introduced some minor changes in the Mass, and increased use of the vernacular. The Novus Ordo has been in use since the First Sunday of Advent in 1970.

        NO document from the Council, and nothing in the instructions for the Mass, calls for turning the priest around, ripping out the Communion rail and statues, etc.

        Reply
      • The changes to the mass were done on two phases. The first was the 1965 Missal, which didn’t make radical changes but was more of a vernacular translation of the existing (“Tridentine rite) low mass with what one might call some streamlining. And, incidentally, there had already been certain practices (dialogue mass, where the people made the responses of the altar boys, even vernacular versions of the Trodentine Rite) that had been permitted on an occasional basis since the 1950s, usually at university parishes or other special settings.

        The full-blown Novus Ordo was introduced in the 1970 Missal and it was very different. I remember the first time it was said in my parish – people left in tears.

        The 1965 Missal, by contrast, was fairly well accepted. Most of the bad changes that were introduced – such as turning the press around, Communion in the hand, removal of the altar, etc. – had nothing to do with what was actually in the Missal, but were things rammed through IN PRACTICE by liturgical destroyers, including some US bishops, and forced upon the Church. They were then solidified by the 1970 Missal and the Novus Ordo.

        Reply
    • She sounds like someone who probably went to a high Episcopal church somewhere and did not know the difference and thought it was Catholic. They used english but copied the old Catholic rite to the tee. I was born in 38 and never heard an english Mass in a Catholic church. In a low Mass, english hymns could be sung if they had music that day, but maybe she got another type service mixed up with a Mass. Many people in those old days did not pay attention to the Mass but prayed the rosary during it, etc. Also, if she is a liberal, she probably thinks she can say what she wants and you would not be able to prove that what she says is wrong. People say all sorts of things nowadays.

      Reply
    • I was born in 43 [in the midst of WWII in the Philippines] and remember the sung Mass, that was in Latin, with both the Ordinary and Propers chanted in Latin. Usually, a parish only had one sung Mass on Sundays and the other Masses were silent.

      We used a hand missal that contained only the English translations. So if you were attending a silent Mass and was not hearing the Latin that the priest was praying, it was easy to think he was saying the exact same words that you were reading – in English!

      Reply
    • The Holy Mass was always said in Latin before Vatican II. The Missal had Latin on the left hand side of the page and the vernacular on the right (I still have mine) for those who couldn’t read Latin, although it was generally taught in all Catholic schools not only for religious purposes but because many university subjects required it.

      Reply
    • I grew up in the Detroit area, with First Holy Communion in the late 1950s at a new modern parish. I recall it being a poster parish for implementing liturgical changes to priests in the area. We were being subjected to novelties and innovations long before 1968.

      Reply
  16. I am Brazilian, and I talked with a priest, who had Fr. Dollinger as professor in the seminary. He told me, and it was about 2003 or, 2004, Fr. Dollinger told him the words of Our Lady were, “don’t change the Mass, don’t call a Council”.

    Reply
  17. Little too late to amend his statement on Fatima in 2000. And I do not believe what they “revealed” in that same year is all true. They made believe that it pertained to the murder attempt to kill John Paul II when in the true sense it applies to a future pope who will escape the Vatican as he tries to escape because of an earthquake. Part of the real secret of Fatima mentioned “wicked council” according to my own research and also mentions a “ball of fire” coming down from heaven to punish humanity. But what a change of heart from Ratzinger. Is that a rectification for his lying to the whole Church?

    Reply
  18. The message of Fatima reminded us that the Church is going to be under attack and also reminded us of the weapons we must use; rosary, penance/reparation.

    But somehow, our shepherds around the time of Vatican II seemed to have thought they can come up with a better weapons. Their weapons have been terrible and worse, they have successfully made the Catholics almost completely forget about the rosary and penance.

    Reply
  19. What is clear is that Vatican II did not bring about the renewal of ecclesial life that John XXIII had hoped. Am sure if he had lived longer, he certainly would have regretted calling the Council. He is a saint because he died too soon.

    Reply
    • hmm, if we believe the late Fr Martin, he had already regretted calling it before he died. Not sure about the saint part, some of these Vat2 saints are going to have to be taken back.

      Reply
    • The big question is if the third secret did specifically speaks of a “bad council and a bad mass,” why on earth would a Pope, who knew the Fatima message in full, move right along and convene a council and create a new mass? Doesn’t make sense.

      Reply
    • Hey Bro, the novus ordo is freemason & protestant. It always has been. There is only one Roman Rite and that is the Latin Rite Mass. Get over it! The Vatican II sect is the false counter church that Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich spoke about in her Church approved prophecies in the 1820’s. Sorry pal!

      Reply
      • ever heard of the Benedictine rite they too omit the judica me. there are other rites of mass in the west and there have been before V2 and after Trent. just food for thought

        Reply
        • The old Benedictine missal does not omit the Judica me. I have seen that missal used many times and know it well. It is basically the Roman rite with some proper Benedictine feasts and some particular rubrics for monks.

          Reply
          • your right I just had to go back and check because I had just read it a few days earlier. I went back and I found what I read it is actually the Dominican rite not the benedictine. here is the link to new advent http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm my point is that there contrary to jeffs statement there are and have been different rites of mass used in the west

    • As is your apparent “incorporated, non-profit” organization of “oblates” and “missioners” of St. Michael which currently is NOT officially recognized by any ecclesiastical authority…

      Yep, garbage.

      Reply
          • We do not have to “keep telling ourselves that” because it has been confirmed by Vatican certified canon lawyers.

            But, this is not the question. Regardless of our status, the truth is the truth. You are just trying to avoid that by attacking us.

            The issue remains that there is no reason for Pope John Paul and the Holy See to lie about this, which is the accusation here. If there were parts of the secret not released the Pope would have simply said, “We are not releasing the last paragraph of the Third Secret at this time.”

            In any event, asking for source documents, instead of third hand information is a reasonable request. Since Pope Benedict is still alive, why don’t you write him to confirm this information?

            All this is irrelevant anyway as Private Revelation, which the Fatima messages are, is not necessary for or salvation, not binding on Catholics, and is not even necessary for us to believe.

        • Not sure what is disobedient about recognizing that the New Mass was developed with the aid of six Protestants, headed by Archbishop Bugnini who was eventually exiled to Iran under suspicion of being a Mason. This is the man who said we must strip everything Catholic from the Mass so as not to be a stumbling block to the Protestants.

          Reply
          • What is disobedient is to reject the Current Mass. The Church has promulgated it. Period.

            As for the Protestants at Vatican II, they were observers. They had no legislative powers. By the way, Protestants were invited to observe at the Council of Trent as well.

            Bottomline comes from St. Augustine, paraphrased:

            “roma locuta est, causa finita est”
            “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

            Unfortunately, we have arrogant people who seem to think they are the Magisterium that wish to deny and/or disparage Vatican II and/or the Current normative Mass.

            I pray that you will return to loyalty and fidelity with the Church.

          • The Novus Ordo missae was never promulgated as a requirement that a Catholic must attend. I take the position of the Holy Office, with Cardinal Ottaviani, who said that it represents a striking departure from the Twenty Second session of the Council of Trent.

          • Well, it was mandated at first. Now one has the choice. But, I am not talking about the choice. I am talking about disparaging the Current Mass, or saying it is invalid, or to reject the Mass. The issue of freedom to choice which Mass on goes to is not the issue.

          • Mandated? Where is this document? The only thing I can find mentioning the new order of mass is on April 28, 1969 entitled “ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE PAUL VI FOR THE ADOPTION OF TWO NEW SACRED CONGREGATIONS, L ‘ ‘ ORDO MISSAE »AND ROMAN CALENDAR”.

            You will not find a mandate here. The normative Mass is the Mass that was never abrogated. I do not say the mass is invalid, but I do say that it is a Protestant-inspired mass, as was said by its creator. The Holy Office even chimed in to say that it was a departure of the Catholic theology of the sacrifice of the Mass. This is all one needs to know to stay away–if possible.

          • It is not Protestant inspired. That is nonsense. But the topic of this thread is the alleged notion, proved to be wrong now, that the Fatima message was not completely revealed.

            We now have proof that these quotes are a hoax. This comes from the mouth of Pope Benedict himself.

            http://jceworld.blogspot.com/2…

            So, this urban legend is debunked. Case Closed

    • Brother Ignatius Mary,

      I have found a number of the prayers in your spiritual warfare library of benefit, and have even linked to them from our resources page. Thank you for the work you do in this under-developed aspect of Catholic spirituality.

      I would ask you to re-consider your harsh assessment of this article. Fr. Dollinger is a known friend of Ratzinger, and he gave this information directly to the writer. As an elderly priest in poor health, he has nothing to gain by this. His concern is only that the truth be known.

      We report this information for the benefit of all those Catholics who, like myself, believe strongly that we do not know the whole story about the Third Secret of Fatima and feel that if Our Lady saw fit to warn us about something, it’s probably something worth knowing.

      Reply
  20. The article reads, “Benedict XVI effectively contradicted his own earlier words…” So Benedict lied? This article seems a bit “fishy,” as it seems to twist Fatima for the sake of credibility of the SSPX and Lefebvre. Lefebvre maybe have been a “great theologian,” but he was a disobedient one. Dr Alice von Hildebrand’s last article did talk about evil within the Church and from the top, but gave no indication as to validate the disobedience of Lefebvre or SSPX. I do trust her, but not this article that seems to be bias. I suspect the closer we get to the 100th anniversary Fatima many more people will use it for their agendas.

    Reply
    • That is the million dollar question. Why would Benedict contradict himself and remain silent on the matter thus far? I mean, why would Fr. Dollinger make these assertions? Personal gain? I think not. Contrary to your belief, Abp. Lefebvre was anything but disobedient to the Faith he vowed to protect with his life. In fact, he may well be vindicated as a saint and supreme defender of the Faith. You are free to carry whatever grudge you have been conditioned to be believe about the FSSPX and Abp. Lefebvre, but the fact of the matter still remains – we have yet to understand and know the full message of the Third Secret of Fatima.

      Reply
        • I would argue, nor is assembling mass meetings between infidels, apostates, and pagans and praying for world peace together, each afforded their own respective ‘prayer spaces’ in Catholic churches and on Catholic property.

          Reply
      • The writer of the article, not Father Dollinger, asserts Benedict’s self-contradiction. I do not agree, from my reading of what Benedict is quoted as saying, that there is any contradiction. In one case he is speaking of consequences which are ongoing, in the other of actual events that are now past.

        Reply
      • Yes, for Ratzinger corrected his pro-communion for adulterers position when Franciscus /Kasper picked up his quote and ran with it but he is going to be silent about Fatima when it involves some thing far more cataclysmic?

        Reply
        • Are you kidding? He’s letting Francis run roughshod over Catholic doctrine without a peep. Why would you expect anything different about this, which is so much harder to prove?

          I’m all for him making a statement, but I think to hope for one might stretch that virtue to the breaking point.

          Reply
    • I’ve also read that Pope Benedict has declared SSPX to be “without canonical standing” in the Church. And that SSPX’s problem was not simply disciplinary but doctrinal.

      Reply
        • Here:

          https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/letters/2009/documents/hf_ben-xvi_let_20090310_remissione-scomunica.html

          LETTER OF HIS HOLINESS POPE BENEDICT XVI…

          “The fact that the Society of Saint Pius X does not possess a canonical status in the Church is not, in the end, based on disciplinary but on doctrinal reasons.

          “As long as the Society does not have a canonical status in the Church, its ministers do not exercise legitimate ministries in the Church.

          “There needs to be a distinction, then, between the disciplinary level, which deals with individuals as such, and the doctrinal level, at which ministry and institution are involved.

          “In order to make this clear once again: until the doctrinal questions are clarified, the Society has no canonical status in the Church, and its ministers – even though they have been freed of the ecclesiastical penalty – do not legitimately exercise any ministry in the Church.

          “…that the problems now to be addressed are essentially doctrinal in nature and concern primarily the acceptance of the Second Vatican Council and the post-conciliar magisterium of the Popes.

          “…The Church’s teaching authority cannot be frozen in the year 1962 – this must be quite clear to the Society. But some of those who put themselves forward as great defenders of the Council also need to be reminded that Vatican II embraces the entire doctrinal history of the Church…”

          BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
          From the Vatican, 10 March 2009

          Reply
  21. I was at a bad Mass because of the Girl Altar Servers. But the Priest showed due reverence during the Consecration of Eucharist owing that he believes in the presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.

    Reply
  22. my late fr gruner will now expose the truth from heaven ?…..regarding the guilty and satans desciples on the Vatican the third secret of fatima , it is a well know fact NWO 666 mark of the beast is the guilty party ….my new book OUR LADY IN THE ROSE will confirm also ..amen

    Reply
  23. Hopefully we will have further clarification and promulgation by May 13, 2017–the 100th Anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima. Let us pray that it be so.

    Reply
    • Doubtful, Michael. Fatima will be commandeered to suit the purpose of the
      current power elite. The vesture of piety draped over heterodoxy provides
      perfect camouflage.

      Reply
    • I think we’re going to get some real “clarification” on 10/13/17. Like the fire from heaven kind of clarification.

      Reply
  24. This seems so true – but needs verification.

    A couple of considerations – the better translations of the
    Mass into English here in the USA
    are helpful.

    The unique prayer read from the Sacramentary just before the
    canon of the Mass are very beautiful – and instructive.

    The return to more reverence in the Liturgy is a relief, and
    reduces nightmares of awful Masses that must have been offensive to the
    Trinity.

    And this Sunday we decided to drive the two hours to attend
    Divine Liturgy in an Eastern Rite parish.
    Oh my God! The reverently
    celebrated Novus Ordo is but a spark compared to the bonfire of an average
    Eastern Rite Liturgy.

    Pope Benedict said he thought it was important for the
    people to understand the words of the Mass. It sure seems like the solution would have
    been to put half of the Tridentine Liturgy in the vernacular.

    Through the prayers of the Mother of God (& St.
    Joseph) may our Savior save us all!

    Rick / Oregon

    Reply
    • Why is it so difficult to understand Latin? It was so in the Church for near a millennium and a half until the hippie dippy council now all of a sudden the vernacular is a must? No thank you. There are kids in my parish that are not even school age who know the Credo, the Gloria, the Pater Noster… all the ordinary prayers in Latin. As far as the propers, that’s why you have a missal. It’s really not that hard. You’d be surprised how fast you learn it. And, of course, if Catholic schools actually taught a little Latin as part of even elementary school curriculum and through high school it would be second nature to all Catholics.

      The Church schools stop teaching Latin, then the excuse becomes “well we need the Mass in the vernacular because nobody understands Latin.”

      Reply
      • Latin is sooooooo hard. Yet my two year old son can sing most of the Salve Regina simply because he has heard us sing it nightly. If a toddler can learn Latin, anyone can!

        Reply
    • Council of Trent, Session 22, Canon IX.– If any one saith, that the rite of the Roman Church, according to which a part of the canon and the words of consecration are pronounced in a low tone, is to be condemned; or, that the mass ought to be celebrated in the vulgar tongue only; or, that water ought not to be mixed with the wine that is to be offered in the chalice, for that it is contrary to the institution of Christ; let him be anathema.

      Reply
      • Tall Order –
        Amen.
        And from memory Vatican II does not nullify any previous council by it’s own words.
        Latin is to be retained – some vulgar tongue was to be permitted. I don’t know about all Eastern Rite Churches, but where we sometimes attend, it’s about half in English and the balance is in Liturgical Slavic. Everything is sung, except sometimes the homily – and the prayer before Communion.
        But what you say is absolutely true. Sad that many priests and bishops didn’t take heed. I wonder how many were automatically excommunicated?
        PS – in your correct quote above, “Roman Church” may have “Latin Rite Churches”, as the terms are often used interchangeably – with the result of some confusion. Many Eastern Churches are in complete communion with Rome – but don’t use Latin – yes?

        Reply
  25. Has anyone mentioned Medjugorje? It is like looking in the window of any insane asylum. Churches have been gutted, millions have left the Church, colleges and universities have apostasized—all because a Pope refused to obey the Mother of God? Why didn’t Ratzinger clear this up in THE RATZINGER REPORT in 1984? Three years into the Bergoglio papacy, when it is obvious he is an apostate, we are told that this was known in 1960 and concealed?
    The ONLY hope we have is the Eucharist and the Rosary.

    Reply
  26. Our Lord and Our Lady announced the conspiracy to invent the “New Mass”:

    “I give you a WARNING. The disciples who are not of My Gospel are now working hard to remake according to their ideas and under the influence of the enemy of Souls a MASS that contains words that are ODIOUS in my sight.” This was given to the mystic and stigmatist Marie Julie Jahenny in Brittany in France at the turn of the century.

    Reply
  27. But we already knew we had a ‘bad council and a bad Mass’. Look at the fruits of them: drop in vocations to priestly and religious life, sex abuse of children, widespread poor catechesis, etc., all capped off by a faux pope trying to justify/rationalize adultery. This seems like a dog bites man story.

    Reply
    • Agree, my thought exactly. There is a lot of talk here about the hidden part of the message speaking about the council/new mass and it may, I hope it does in fact but we’re already painfully aware it was a BAD council.
      lets not forget that the other part of the message talks about a severe chastisement. This is known or otherwise John XXIII would not have opened Vat2 with his “prophets of doom” comment.

      Reply
    • The trouble with that analysis is the real Mass was normative and predated all of the Christological Heresies, the protestant revolution, Vatican Two, etc.

      Reply
  28. Nothing should be secret.

    Jesus himself during his ministry on Earth said that nothing that had been preached had been secret. Everything that had been taught was done so in the open.

    The conjecture about what is contained in the 3rd secret of Fatima is tiresome and corrosive at this point.

    I very much doubt that Our Lady – as the Mother of God – would wish that secrets be maintained. In fact it would go against entirely everything that the gospels teach us about the ministry of Jesus Christ.

    Whether the Church is witholding information concerning the 3rd secret of Fatima is a moot point at this stage.

    Reply
  29. I have to say that I feel confident relying on the truthfulness of Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict, and far less confident relying on these far fetched, far-fangled conspiracy theories.

    Reply
    • That attitude will get you nothing but…a miter, a crosier, and a titular see.

      Well said, Tom, my brother bishop-to-be!

      Didya hear about the one where they doubted My predecessor’s resignation on grammatical grounds?

      I mean, really. Grammar? We don’t even do vocabulary anymore! At least not in My church.

      Reply
  30. Magnificent, Maike!!!

    My Friends in Jesus & Mary, we must continue to storm Heaven!

    Heavenly Father, we pray for the Triumph of The Immaculate Heart of Mary throughout the world, in our hearts and in our homes, and in our Catholic Churches, especially in the hearts of our Catholic ministers: priest, bishops, deacons, and other religious.

    O Communion of Saints, please petition Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ to hasten the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the pope and all the Catholic bishops on Earth, on the same day, within the same hour. (The popes and many bishops have not responded to the Grace of God (the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is still wanting), so we must continue to pray & make sacrifices i.e. First Saturdays.)

    O Sts. Joseph, John the Baptist, and St. Anne, enlighten us!

    O Bls. Jacinta & Francesco, help in this necessity!

    O St. Michael, the Archangel, defends us in this battle!

    O St. Pio, I send to you my Guardian Angel for assistance in this matter!

    Come Holy Spirit!!!

    JAMLY,
    eugene

    Reply
  31. May Almighty God uphold Pope Benedict. If only would he would discern that now is the moment for himself to step before the microphone and speak these words aloud to the public. Otherwise they are consigned to the bin of conspiracy. Someone must speak up. He is the only man in the Church who can bring the corrective to what is transpiring.

    Reply
  32. I like Fr. Malachi Martin S.J. on Fatima and the problems of the Church. Martin thought PJXXIII a good holy man,personally, but a peasant out of his depth who obscured the Fatima message to appease the commies and get them to VII. Alll seems to fit. Why cannot our Church and all its bishops consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary?

    Reply
    • Since there is more devout Christianity in Russia today than there is in America or Europe, I am inclined to believe that the consecration was successfully done. It is America and Europe that need to be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. And if they were already consecrated, then what does that say about consecrations and our post Christian/anti-Christian nation and Europe?

      Reply
      • Well I disagree that the Consecration of Russia was ever properly done according to Our Lady’s request. I would love to see alll the world’s bishops simultaneously consecrate Russia, hen Europe, then the US. Maybe we should have a Novena of consecrations. We need it since it seems the defeat of communism is chimerical and the errors of Russia are overtaking the Western world.

        Reply
        • Google up, “Who financed the Bolshevik Revolution” and read who the real culprits were in spreading Communisim. I think it is a misnomer to say “the errors of Russia are overtaking the Western world.”

          Reply
          • I am not sure what your point is. According to Wikipedia, ” A loose confederation of anti-Bolshevik forces aligned against the Communist government, including landowners, republicans, conservatives, middle-class citizens, reactionaries, pro-monarchists, liberals, army generals, non-Bolshevik socialists who still had grievances and democratic reformists voluntarily united only in their opposition to Bolshevik rule.”

            The White Army lost. Probably because they didn’t have the financing that the Bolsheviks/Reds had.

          • The West, weakly, supported the anti-communist Whites and their feckless support lost Russia to communism for 70 years(kinda like VietNam or China). The Bolsheviks had military mutineers on their side and seized power even while losing elections, deposing an elected government and executing communist Menshevik rivals. Many Jew haters accuse Jews of causing the Russian revolution. How many Jewish pogroms were conductes by the Tsars? How many Jews slaughtered?

          • You tell me. How many Christians were slaughtered by the Bolsheviks and those that came to power after them?

            Who does the counting? Who writes the history books?

            Satan, the Prince of Lies, is behind all wars.

          • Lenin was not a Jew. Stalin was not a Jew. Stalin murdered Trotsky, a Jew. Stalin got kicked out of seminary and was possibly the most murderous person who ever lived. I defend no Bolsheviks or Mensheviks or any other commie. I defend no Socialists or Fascists or similar Totalitarians. Our church is infected with Marxism but I do not despair or hate Jews because Christ is my King. Let our church entire consecrate Russia specifically by name to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It might bring peace to the world.

          • So Lenin is a dastardly Jew now even though he was a staunch atheist. I wonder if he was part Jewish religiously or ethnically? Let’s not forget that the Tsar persecuted and killed his brother(I think I recall).
            Marx’ family converted from Judaism to Lutheranism when he was young and then he became a devil worshiper later in youth before just being an virulent anti-theist.
            I’ve heard Hitler may have been part Jewish.
            Wonder if the Russian pogroms wiping out whole villages of Jews ever occurred?
            Did the Holocaust occur?
            Are the Zionists responsible for all wars?

            Peace be with you.

          • If my grandfather was a Mason does that mean I am not a Catholic? Am I racially or religiously contaminated? Am I still a Mason?
            Some folks are really, really out there.

          • From:
            A COLLECTION OF REPORTS ON BOLSHEVISM IN RUSSIA
            Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty. April 1919.

            “Russian working classes not represented by Bolsheviks, most of latter being Jews. Murder of labourers, owing to non-support of Bolshevism.”
            page 33

            And here is the original:
            https://ia800208.us.archive.org/21/items/RussiaNo.1/47439722-Russia-No-1.pdf

            Fr. Denis Fahey – The Real Rulers of Russia
            (there is a list with the Bolshevik rulers’ names and nationalities right at the beginning)
            https://ia800802.us.archive.org/7/items/TheRulersOfRussia-AmericanEdition-ByRevDenisFahey/TheRulersOfRussia-AmericanEdition-ByRevDenisFahey.pdf

            Russia’s Agony
            by Mr. Robert Wilton
            Correspondent of The Times at Petrograd
            https://ia801406.us.archive.org/4/items/russiasagony00wiltgoog/russiasagony00wiltgoog.pdf

  33. At this hour it is late, but not too late, for our Holy Father, Benedict, in union with those remaining Faithful Bishops, to do the Consecration to Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart, as She requested. What is needed is a Miracle, and every Miracle requires an act of Faith.

    Reply
  34. The still secret part of the 3rd revelation of Fatima must necessarily belong to that kind of things totally forbidden by the present political correctness. Until its disclosure, we can only make conjectures, more or less reasonable.

    Reply
  35. Since Abp. Lefebvre was excommunicated by a Pope (JP II?), and now the excommunication has been lifted after Abp. Lefebvre’s death, what does that say about the indefectibility of the Church? I thought Jesus promised that the Holy Spirit would guide the Church in all truth. What happened?

    Reply
    • Lefebvre was automatically excommunicated by canon law, not by jpii. I believe +Benedict saw it wasn’t realistic nor applicable to his reasons. Supplied jurisdiction …

      Reply
        • Canon 1013 states, “No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.” The meaning of this canon is self-evident, in that a bishop needs permission from the Holy See before consecrating another to the episcopate. The penalty for one who violates this canon is also clearly stated in the Code of Canon Law as follows: Canon 1383 “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” As one can see, the penalty of excommunication for one who violates the aforementioned canon is automatic, and can only be removed by the Apostolic See (can. 1355).

          Reply
          • So does this mean that Pope John Paul II never publicly addressed the excommunication of Abp. Lefebvre? If so, it’s sort of like how the pro-abortion “Catholic” politicians are automatically excommunicated but no Pope makes it public.

      • He was NOT automatically excommunicated. PJPII declared him excommunicated, which was akin to St. Athanasius being excommunicated by Pope Liberius.

        Reply
        • Not even within a galactic distance of similarity.

          Liberius was then a captive and being tortured and Athanasius publicly vouched for his orthodoxy whereas Lefebvre was justly excommunicated

          Liberals is a saint and his orthodoxy was confirmed by a subsequent Pope

          See Denzinger’s entry St. Liberius between 57e and 58.

          See also #93 “The Orthodoxy of Pope Liberius

          Reply
          • Read St. Athanasius: Defender of the Faith by the late, great Michael Davies (eternal memory!). He says that Pope Liberius was the first Pope NOT to be canonized immediately upon his death because he signed an Arian or semi-Arian document. It was PJPII who canonized him. No other Pope would even think of such a thing.

            Also check out Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre by Michael Davies at Angelus Press.

            I’m sorry, but we have to agree to disagree here re Archbishop Lefebvre. I
            used to think just like you. When 60 Minutes announced in June or early July 1988 about Archbishop Lefebvre being excommunicated by Pope John Paul II, I was shouting at the TV “Who does this French fellow think he is? Way to go, Holy Father!”. I was a real dummy.

            When I met a gentleman in 1997 who told me about the TLM, my friend and I went to St. Jude’s. It was All Saints on the TL calendar. It was a Low Mass – and I mean Low Mass, because you couldn’t hear they priest. And we were in the first row! That was beautiful.

            Since then I’ve learned more about the Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX. I understand now why he did it – for the good of souls and the Church. Someday he will be canonized too.

            Remember not, O Lord, the sins of my youth…

        • You are incorrect Margaret. Jpii never excommunicated anyone during his pontificate. Lefebvre was excommunicated latae sententiae,(automatically)

          Canon 1013 states, “No Bishop is permitted to consecrate anyone as Bishop, unless it is first established that a pontifical mandate has been issued.” The meaning of this canon is self-evident, in that a bishop needs permission from the Holy See before consecrating another to the episcopate. The penalty for one who violates this canon is also clearly stated in the Code of Canon Law as follows: Canon 1383 “Both the Bishop who, without a pontifical mandate, consecrates a person a Bishop, and the one who receives the consecration from him, incur a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.” As one can see, the penalty of excommunication for one who violates the aforementioned canon is automatic, and can only be removed by the Apostolic See (can. 1355).

          Reply
          • “First, no penalty is ever incurred without grave moral imputabilty. (Canon 1323.7). This means, in the moral theologian’s terminology, subjective mortal sin. The archbishop has made it clear many times that his primary purpose in consecrating successors is to ensure a future supply of traditional priests to provide the laity with Mass and the sacraments. He acted only after years of thought, and many months of protracted negotiations with the Holy See…Even if the final decision is judged a mistake, it cannot amount to subjective mortal sin.

            Secondly, Canon 1323.4 states that even where an offense carrying a penalty has been committed, the penalty is not incurred if the act was performed out of necessity—unless it be something intrinsically evil or damaging to souls. Again, it is clear that it was the necessity of providing for a future supply of traditional priests which caused the archbishop and his co-consecrator to act as they did, after all hope for a ” reconciliation ” with Rome had proved groundless.

            There is a very old “rule of law” (Regula iuris 15) which gives the benefit of any doubt in cases of penal law: Odia restringi, et favores convenit ampliari. In other words, if there is a doubt whether a penalty has been incurred in a particular case, it means that is has not been incurred. (sic)

            (Pages 98-99)

            Schism, defined in Canon 751, means refusal of subjectively to the supreme pontiff (sic) or refusal of communion with other members of the Church. ” (page 99)

            “No penalty is incurred by a person forced by a necessity to act against the law.” Canon 1323 N. 4 (CIC 1983) (page 105)

            Source: Is Tradition Excommunicated? A Collection of Independent Studies. Angelus Press, 1993, 2nd printing.

          • If you read the 1988 episcopal sermon of Archbishop Lefebvre, he categorically states that he had NO intention of creating a schism or setting up his own church. He did what he had to do for the good of souls as well as the SSPX.

          • Indeed. I agree. Perhaps that is THE reason he wasn’t truly excommunicated. He disobeyed the rules but had no intention of building another church -unlike Luther… as some neo-catholics on these forums like to compare him to. Also, if it weren’t for Lefebvre, where would the TLM be?

    • It says nothing about the indefectibility of the Church. The Pope is not the Church and he most certainly can louse up such a thing as an excommunication, as awful as that is.

      Reply
  36. Does anyone have accurate, credible information about the secret of La Salette that took place in the late 19th Century? That Marian apparition was Church-approved but it is believed that the full secret Our Lady told Melanie was not revealed and that is because it had to do with Rome losing the Faith. It would be interesting to compare that secret with this suppressed third secret of Fatima – I think they are very similar. Thanks in advance.

    Reply
    • Melanie’s “message” was condemned.

      That Rome would lose the faith was the message of Luther not Mary.

      Or, one could believe Mary had received permission from her son, Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ to appear on earth to tell some kids that the Church established by Jesus would fail despite His infallible (See Vatican 1) teaching that the Holy See would never fail and teach error.

      But, that is precisely the message Lefebvre sent out during his sermon for the illegal consecrations of Bishops.

      O, and he told his audience that Mary had predicted a long time ago that some future cleric would rise up to save the Church but, being shy, he would not attribute that prophesy to himself.

      Reply
  37. An article I read from the coffee table at the Manchester Catholic Tribunal Council ten years ago quoted a visionary stating that the Blessed Mother said that satan had entered her son`s church and the secret had not been revealed. asking everyone to pray for the shepard`s . The Blessed Mother was very upset that the true secret had not been revealed.

    Reply
  38. now that I’m going to the TLM, I cannot attend the novus ordo anymore. I refuse to witness the grins, winks, ringtones, protestant village people arm exercises, but most of all the hordes of parishioners who receive Our Lord standing in their unconsecrated hands. People respect their jobs, bosses, health, fitness, facebook status..BUT NOT OUR LORD. Bad Mass? How about disrespectful irreverent Mass? People have no idea that The Mass is the re-enactment of Calvary. There were ZERO grins at the foot of The Cross. True Catholics know what’s up here..the work of aa-1025 is gradually being exposed. Our Lady and St Michael please continue to protect The Latin Mass!!

    Reply
  39. Once again, the claims that Lefevbre was another Athanasius are being rolled out and those claims are attributable to the lying propaganda of the SSPX and are entirely at odds with reality.

    Lefebvre called Pope Saint John Paul Ii an anti Christ
    Lefebvre consecrated Bishops in opposition to the Pope.

    Athanasius publicly defended the orthodoxy of Liberius.
    Athanasius did not consecrate one bishop

    But Liberius after he had been in banishment two years gave way, and from fear of threatened death subscribed. Yet even this only shows their violent conduct, and the hatred of Liberius against the heresy, and his support of Athanasius, so long as he was suffered to exercise a free choice. For that which men are forced by torture to do contrary to their first judgment, ought not to be considered the willing deed of those who are in fear, but rather of their tormentors. They however attempted everything in support of their heresy, while the people in every Church, preserving the faith which they had learned, waited for the return of their teachers, and condemned the Antichristian heresy, and all avoid it, as they would a serpent.

    Those too lazy to do their own research make easy prey for propagandists.

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2815.htm

    Reply
    • Once again, the claims that Lefevbre was another Athanasius are being rolled out and those claims are attributable to the lying propaganda of the SSPX and are entirely at odds with reality.

      While you may be correct, I’m sure similar disdain was showered upon Athanasius during his time. We have the luxury of centuries of hindsight.

      Lefebvre called Pope Saint John Paul Ii an anti Christ

      I haven’t seen a direct quote of this. Would you share it for context?

      If he meant it in terms of JPII being a “type” of the antichrist, is saying such a thing about a living pope sufficient grounds for dismissal from the ranks of the pious?

      I believe Francis is a precursor of the antichrist, inasmuch as he is destroying the clear teaching of the Catholic faith and spreading a confusion that would only serve to facilitate the rise of the real Antichrist should he come soon. (I talk about this more here: https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/gaia-church-love-the-earth-heaven-can-wait/)

      If it’s true — or if one honestly believes it so, even if they turn out to be mistaken — how do you calculate the damage it does to them?

      Lefebvre consecrated Bishops in opposition to the Pope.

      Athanasius continued to offer the sacraments after his excommunication and counseled the faithful not to attend the churches of the Arians, even though their sacraments were valid.

      Athanasius publicly defended the orthodoxy of Liberius.

      Liberius was orthodox.

      Athanasius did not consecrate one bishop

      This was, in my opinion, a mistake. Lefebvre paid the juridical penalty for it, but none but God know the truth of his conscience on the matter and the level of his personal culpability.

      Meanwhile, Cardinal Lehmann just admitted (https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/cardinal-lehmann-popes-cardinal-muller-amoris-laetitia/) that after fighting with JPII over the Church in Germany participating in a government abortion counselling program, JPII nonetheless personally intervened to give him a red hat. Was he not also latae sententiae excommunicated for cooperating with legalized abortion? (We’ll never know, because JPII didn’t do his duty as regards Lehman and write a letter announcing this automatic penalty to the world as he did with Lefebvre.

      Those too lazy to do their own research make easy prey for propagandists.

      As do those too biased to care about truth. The SSPX is not our enemy. And in a time like the present, we need all the help we can get.

      Reply
  40. In addition, Cardinal Ratzinger before he was elected as Pope Benedict, gave a hint on the hidden part of the Third Secret when he once declared that Fatima’s and Akita’s messages are, according to his own words “essentially the same”.
    The Akita message speaks about “bishops against bishops, cardinals against cardinals”. Exactly what is currently happening under our eyes.

    Reply
  41. There was once a man who wasn’t sure if his name was really what he was told because, as he said, he only learned about it through hearsay! I believe we can trust Saint John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI. The thoughts in this post remain a perpetual possibility only in a world of endless speculation (paraphrasing Eliot).

    Tom

    Reply
    • My dear brother bishop-to-be,

      If you keep this up you will not only receive a miter, crosier, and titular see, you’ll also get a red hat and free lodging at the Casa Santa Marta.

      ¡Porque mi casa es tu casa!

      ¡Y mi iglesia es mi iglesia!

      Reply
  42. Father Gruner should be given credit for breaking this story many years ago. He was also the first to break the story on the secret commission that informed JP II that the Old Mass had never been forbidden. I was sitting with him at a Keep the Faith conference when he handed up the question to Cardinal Stickler about the secret commission, which Stickler confirmed.

    Reply
  43. I see in (most) comments below that Vatican II is blamed or named as the cause of the N.O. mass rather than the “abuses” of Vatican II. The “bad” mass is the impostor N.O. mass created by innovators who “hijacked” the true mass of Vatican II which was to be an organic development resulting from and very similar to the Tridentine mass. Vatican II documents call for the retention of Latin but allowing additional vernacular and stresses the music to be sacred Gregorian chant. So, the council did not create the mass as is today, it is a development of accumulative abuses. The excommunication of the SSPX was not because of their view of the council but because of ordaining bishops without permission from the pope. It was a disobedience to “save” the mass. As an active participant of the council and an observer of the abuses Pope Benedict is totally aware of all the council and it’s hijacking and did what he could to right the wrongs albeit against much opposition. Francis has ordered (by the way) for the congregation to “continue with the mass as Benedict XVI has required”. Even pope Francis agrees with pope Benedict concerning the mass.

    Reply
  44. From Fatima Crusader magazine eight years ago:

    “…Our Lady also warned that there would be an evil Council in the Church that would cause great scandal. And of course, it was the documents of Vatican II-the Constitution on the Liturgy-which gave the impetus for Pope Paul VI to reform the liturgy in such a disastrous manner that caused such a loss of faith and confusion in the Church.”

    “…The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time personal friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest -Father Dollinger- told me that this question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Dollinger said to me, “I confronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?”

    Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich gebt das der etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.”

    Reply
    • Mr. Ferrara, I respect your opinion very much and so I’d like to ask: Do you have any insight as to the un-released message of LaSalette? I’ve heard mixed stories but it seems that it too had to do with a similar situation to this un-released third secret of Fatima. Thank you.

      Reply
      • There is a French-only book written by Fr. Rene Laurentin called the Discovery of the Secrets of LaSalette (in English). I could look up the title if you want, but it’s French only. There are multiple versions of the secrets written by both Melanie and Maximin. Most places only publish the final (Lecce) version of Melanie’s.

        Reply
    • Though the general meaning is clear enough, the key German sentence quoted in the above account has apparently suffered some unfortunate corruption in transmission. I assume it was originally “Wirklich, da gab es doch etwas” or “Wirklich, da gab es noch etwas.” As it stands, it’s a garbled mess.

      Reply
  45. I am late to the party and see many good comments. I would only add that the refusal to publish the secret in 1960 as requested obviously showed some very bad news. And just like the stubborn hierarchy, including the pope, who refused to consecrate Russia way back when, the disasters have befallen us as prophesied.

    Reply
  46. Speculation, circular arguments, and non-sense accusations to no end cling to the “Secret.” Let Pope Cardinal Ratzinger speak out now. Answer this new rumor please. The “Final Secret of Fatima” has been fully released or it has not.

    Reply
  47. Ugh. This is all very attractive. If your comment below is negative, condescending or angry you may want to contemplate how closely you are walking with your Lord.

    Reply
  48. Can someone in the media, you perhaps Mrs Hickson, please go interview Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and ask him point blank about all this, if it is true? I am tired of all this he said she said. Be a real journalist. Get it from the horse’s mouth!

    Reply
  49. How can anyone over 12 years old believe in such nonsense as religion?
    Obviously no functioning relationship with reality and why the world is messed up as it is. Grow up folk….. yes entertain an adult relationship with reality!

    Reply
    • Then may it be the will of my Father in Heaven that I remain always 11
      years old. Aren’t there other more sophisticated sites for you to waste
      your time with? If we are all nothing but misguided, stunted children,
      what brings you here? To chastise us for not being as erudite as you?
      What purpose does that serve in you?

      From my perspective the person who believes that all creation, in all it’s complexity and grandeur, just popped out of nothing and organized itself, is crippled with a mentality way short of a twelve year old or even an infant. Pride compels you to deny the obvious. But living in denial of the obvious is not enough. That one person exists who refuses to go along with your stupidity is enough for you to come to sites like this and mock and ridicule. Probably made you feel good for a moment.

      You are not at peace and will never be as long as you reject the only source of peace. You can spit on people who have peace all day long. It will do you no good. One of us indeed has a desperate need to not only “entertain” but embrace an adult relationship with reality. And it ain’t me. I probably shouldn’t have bothered responding but what the heck.

      Reply
      • I can hear the sincerity in your post and thank you and respect you for that, but it is just pity for the ignorance and with out any respect for that.
        I have made my own way from the ignorance of the church and found a relationship with the creator and reality and I wish one for you too.

        I draw your attention to the David John Oates reverse speech technology where the pope discloses his molestation and rape of children. Smell the coffee.

        Bless you.

        Reply
        • I don’t like coffee. And fag priests and crap bishops are a cowards excuse to do what you were set on doing anyway. The core of all rejection is the same as that of the first protestor: pride. And that road ends in the pit.

          Reply
          • Christ and Christ alone is the key to a satisfying, fulfilling, and eternal life. Anything else is an illusion. The Church has not been populated by 2,000 years worth of 12 year olds. I am nothing. Faith is a gift. Ask for it in humility. You won’t be disappointed. It is an indescribable journey of joy.

          • I have no response to such irresponsible blind wilful ignorance and see that it is also why we live in such a dysfunctional world. Faith is acknowledgment of ignorance, can we consider data and knowledge?

            Take care.

        • I see a picture of books next to your username, its possible you are reading the wrong material. Try reading some good Catholic books as I’m sure it will change your perspective.

          Reply
  50. In a Universe of Infinite possibilities the green emerald Terr was discovered by him, and so he became the Lord o Landowner.

    Reply
  51. Message of Our Lady in Akita

    “If men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one will never have seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the Pope, the Bishops and the priests.

    “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see Cardinals opposing Cardinals, Bishops against other Bishops. The priests who venerate Me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres (other priests). Churches and altars will be sacked. The Church will be full of those who accept compromises, and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

    “The demon will be especially implacable against the souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of My sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will no longer be pardon for them.

    “…Pray very much the prayers of the Rosary. I alone am able to still save you from the calamities which approach. Those who place their confidence in Me will be saved.”

    The last Sunday of May, 1982, during the Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, Sister Agnes was completely cured from her deafness.

    Reply
    • That has yet to be fulfilled – there has not been fire from the sky as yet. And no wiping out of most of humanity has occurred.

      Reply
  52. As Chris Ferrara pointed out, Fr. Gruner of the Fatima Center originally broke this story in the Fatima Crusader magazine. It was issue 92 of the Fatima Crusader, May 2009. The article entitled “The Secret Warned Against Vatican Council II and the New Mass.” Here’s the link to the issue:

    http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr92/toc92.asp

    Old news to those of it that has been following these developments for years, but it’s great to have this part of the secret brought up again for those who have recently been awakened to the crisis of faith because of the efforts of One Peter Five and the pontificate of Francis.

    Reply
      • Right. I just wanted people who were interested in getting more information the opportunity to read the original article which has some more detail on the incident. What I just realized was while the breaking story years ago had the story Fr. Dollinger told a priest, this new article has confirmation from Fr. Dollinger himself. Fr. Dollinger publicly confirming the truth of the story. Definitely needed at this time as more and more people are awakening to the apostasy and message of Fatima.

        Reply
  53. I suggest everyone read the soft cover book by Antonio Socci ” The Fourth Secret of Fatima”. The ENTIRE secret was NEVER revealed. After reading this book, you will have the answers as to why and what the future holds for the church in particular and the world in general and it’s not pretty!

    Reply
  54. Like so much of Catholic doctrine, the revelations of Fatima are nothing more than a fraud! The Pope is infallible. He is the sole representative of the Son of God on Earth. He holds the keys to Heaven and Hell. If you are excommunicated from the Catholic Church, you will burn in Hell for an eternity. What is true is that the Jesuit controlled Vatican is behind the New World Order, as thoroughly documented in “The Secret History of the New World Order”. Wake up people!

    Reply
  55. Just look at the world and see for yourself. This world is like it was in the Old Testament where God had to punish towns and bring about floods to stop all the sins. Hardly anyone I know goes to Mass, says the rosary, or believes in anything Christian. All this craziness about LBGT’s and bathrooms wouldn’t be happening if more people were good and Christian.

    Reply
  56. They’re afraid because they know the third secret represents the destruction of their wicked institution (started from the top) and the “bad mass” refers to the congregation of god’s children rising from the dead. It’s in most prophecies that exist…all one has to do is study prophetic teachings that existed before the corruption of the church…see blue Kachina

    Reply
  57. Marcel Lefebvre, in his Aug. 29, 1987. letter to the four bishops-to-be,

    “The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below.”

    Fr. Richard Ginder, a former columnist for The Wanderer. In his short book, 1968, Thou Art the Rock, when referring to the separation of the “wheat and the tares” that took place between Luther igniting the revolt and the Treaty of Westphalia (1517-1648), Fr. Ginder noted the following:

    It is the old story of the tares among the wheat. It took 131 years to make a separation once before but with the advance in communications media, we shall not have to wait so long this time. But we shall see it. It will come – very likely in the shape of a heretical sect attributing primacy of honour but refusing jurisdiction to the Holy Father, at the same time proclaiming themselves the only True Believers.

    The Saints taught here is never justification for a schism. Never.

    Jesus saves His One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church not a renegade who created his own petit ecclesia

    Reply
    • Mons Lefevbre was not anther Athanasius. He was another Martin Luther:

      Martin Luther, “These [church laws] hold good only so long as they are not injurious to Christianity and the laws of God. Therefore, if the Pope deserves punishment, these laws cease to bind us, since Christendom would suffer.”

      Marcel Lefebvre, “In the Church there is no law or jurisdiction which can impose on a Christian a diminution of his faith. All the faithful can and should resist whatever interferes with their faith…. If they are forced with an order putting their faith in danger of corruption, there is an overriding duty to disobey.”

      Martin Luther, “The Church of Rome, formerly the most holy of all churches, has become . . . the very kingdom of sin, death and hell; so that not even the Antichrist, if he were to come, could desire any addition to its wickedness.”

      Marcel Lefebvre,: “The See of Peter and posts of authority in Rome being occupied by Antichrists, the destruction of the Kingdom of Our Lord is being rapidly carried out even within His Mystical Body here below.”

      OK, Steve. IANS could post these things all day long but he won’t for it would make no difference to those ideologically committed to the indefensible and, besides,they would be extraneous to the content of this post.

      pax tecum

      Reply
      • Archbishop Marcel Lefevbre was no Martin Luther. Luther was a schismatic and a heretic. Lefevbre was the opposite of Luther, he did not introduce new doctrines he defended the doctrines of the Teaching Tradition of the Church. He was not an innovator, he detested them. Before the Council, Lefevbre was lifted up as a remarkable Prelate, after the Council not having changed in any way, was then despised as the most contemptuous Prelate. Who was wrong in the way he was treated, was it the Church before the Council or was it the Church gone mad after the Council?

        Reply
    • That statement of Lefebvre, taken at face value, is hard to argue with.

      As for the rest, your obsession with this error is exhausting.

      Whatever Fr. Ginder said, whatever you happen to think, there IS. NO. SCHISM. (Has any schismatic group ever been given faculties to hear confessions by a pope?)

      The singular act which may have been considered schismatic (and the canonical arguments to the contrary must and WILL be taken into account when the Church eventually comes to her senses, though I feel no confidence that Lefebvre will be exonerated in this regard) were the episcopal consecrations. They are done, and Benedict lifted the penalty. The members of the Society, whatever their other human faults and failings, believe and hold what the Church has always believed and held and as such, have just as much claim when it comes to failed submission to the Roman Pontiff as they look to Rome and see those who in virtue of their Petrine office have sought to contradict their predecessors — which even the Apostolic See has no power to do.

      The Schism was already in existence before Lefebvre made his fateful decision in 1988. And it worsens today even without his Society fully reconciled. It exists in the persons of the heretic bishops so loved and empowered by the post-conciliar popes; it exists in all the reversals of Catholic teaching on matters as fundamental as religious liberty and the role of the Church in society, it exists in a liturgy that seeks to diminish, as far as possible, the sacrificial nature of the Mass, it exists in a Church that is filled with prelates and priests who, with a wink and nudge, told the faithful they could practice contraception if their conscience told them to, and it continues this policy with communion for the divorced and remarried (and Protestants!) today.

      The singular act of consecration of four bishops, even if it was fully wrong, is insignificant in the face of the real, ongoing, and larger heresies perpetrated by so many bishops and even papal electors in the Curia. Known heresies. Known and open statements and actions of dissent. Multiple prelates in Europe have openly promoted things like abortion and gay marriage and flouted every important aspect of Church Church teaching in their public statements and preaching. Many of these are rumored, in fact, to live in barely-concealed sodomitical relationships of their own (a choice which, under Pope St. Pius V, would have had them de-frocked and handed over to the state for execution).

      Yet all remain in good standing, and many have been promoted by the recent popes.

      In light of that, this sick obsession with the SSPX, who through certainly debatable means, sought only to preserve the Church’s teaching, tradition, and praxis? It disgusts me. It’s a vile, unjust, inexplicable form of madness. Their act of disobedience is so relatively small, and in fact has the hallmarks of a thing that even the average layman must concede might in fact be exculpated through recourse to conscience and a state of necessity, that even were they completely in the wrong, one can at least understand their reasons.

      I will not condemn them. Their sin of disobedience — if it is, in fact, a sin at all — is in the past. Let. It. Go. They are our allies, not our enemies.

      Reply