Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

A Further Confirmation of Father Dollinger’s Claim about Cardinal Ratzinger and Fatima

Image: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger and Dr. Ingo Dollinger, 1997

In May of 2016, OnePeterFive received a public denial from the Vatican’s Press Office with regard to a story that we had published about the apparently still missing part of the Third Secret of Fatima. On 15 May 2016, Dr. Ingo Dollinger, a saintly priest and long-time friend of then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, had confirmed to us that Cardinal Ratzinger – shortly after the 26 June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima – had admitted to him that one part of that secret was still not published.

However, in the 21 May 2016 Press Communique from the Vatican, Pope Benedict XVI was himself quoted as having said “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima” and, secondly, that “the publication of the Third Secret is complete.” Right after this denial and added affirmation, Dr. Dollinger insisted again upon bearing his own witness. In the wake of this somewhat unsettling development, we therefore inquired further about the virtuous life and witness of Dr. Dollinger – who himself was also a close collaborator of Saint Padre Pio – and we then also published a short story of his life in order to give more credence and even a moral certitude to his story.

Fr. Dollinger became close to St. Padre Pio as a young priest.

It is with much gratitude, therefore, that we can report today that Giuseppe Nardi, the editor of the German Catholic website,, has found an additional personal source who now confirms our earlier story, namely that Cardinal Ratzinger had told Dr. Dollinger that there is still a part of the Third Secret of Fatima missing and not yet officially published.

Giuseppe Nardi was able to meet in Austria and then interview a close friend of Dr. Dollinger himself for many years: Gottfried Kiniger. Kiniger is a hatmaker and lives in the little beautiful village of Sillian in the East Tirol of Austria. He is now also in his late 80s and he was in his lifetime very active politically, having been supportive of the monarchist cause and of the Pan-European Movement (Paneuropa Bewegung) of Otto von Habsburg, and having also always been a public defender of the Catholic Church. As he told Giuseppe Nardi, he regularly met with Dr. Dollinger at least twice a year after they had first met in the 1990s in Salzburg, Austria. Only these recent years, due to their advanced age, these two friends have not any more been able to meet in person. Inasmuch as Father Dollinger has lived in Wigratzbad, Germany since his own retirement in 2004, the two friends often had met in that village where also the Fraternity of St. Peter’s own seminary is now located.

Gottfried Kiniger with his wife, 2009

As Nardi now reports, he first happened to visit Gottfried Kiniger on 21 December 2016, where he incidentally and quite informally mentioned the Dollinger story, as it had been publicly discussed more broadly after that 21 May of 2016. Kiniger, who does not use the Internet, had not yet heard about that story. Nardi continues, by saying:

After hearing about the [21 May 2016] denial coming from Rome, Kiniger became very upset. He could not imagine that Benedict XVI was to have made such a statement, because what Hickson had reported is what Dollinger had told him already in 2000. For this reason, there took place a second conversation at which Kiniger’s own description was recorded.

That second and recorded conversation took place some three weeks later, on 17 January 2017. Kiniger has now wholeheartedly given his approval for the publication of his own personal witness with regard to the Dollinger case. In the following, we shall present Nardi’s own report and technical recording of Kiniger’s own words:

“I do not remember the exact date,” says Kiniger, “but it was still in the year 2000, I am sure about that. I still remember the press conference [about the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima] in Rome, as it was then shown on television. In the fall, I visited again, as usual, Dollinger with whom I am friends for many years. On this occasion, he told me of his having met Cardinal Ratzinger – then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – shortly after that [June 2000] press conference. He even then con-celebrated with him, something which Dollinger usually does not do, but Ratzinger had invited him to do it. After the celebration [of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], Dollinger spoke with the cardinal and brought up the topic of Fatima and the Third Secret. Ratzinger told him: ‘What we have published is not the whole secret. [‘Was wir veröffentlicht haben, ist nicht das ganze Geheimnis.’] In the sacristy, there were also present other priests – some of them high-ranking priests – to whom the cardinal had to attend intermittently. But he soon returned to Dollinger and said to him: ‘We were instructed to do so.’ [‘Es ist uns so aufgetragen worden.’] This same sentence Dollinger, a second time, repeated: ‘We were instructed to do so.’ He [Dollinger] has interpreted these words, as such: namely, that John Paul II wanted it and ordered it this way. At this meeting, when Dollinger told me all these things, other people were also present, among them my own companion.

In the years to follow, Dollinger told of this episode again and again, several times, at our meetings. Most of the time, there were also several other people present. It was no secret, there was nothing that he kept secret. This is what the cardinal told him, this is what he passed on to others. Sometimes, there were priests and seminarians also sitting with us at the table who came from the seminary of the Fraternity of St. Peter in Wigratzbad. I do not know their names. In any event, numerous people have heard this story over the course of the years. I personally can witness to the story since the fall of 2000, when Dollinger told it to me for the first time. There is for me no doubt that Professor Dollinger, in whom I have complete trust, has described the story in a truthful manner. What would have been his reason to invent such a conversation and such a content – and so shortly after the press conference at the time – and then also to tell it freely and openly to everybody who wanted to hear it? That Benedict denies it suddenly, after 16 years, is hard for me to imagine. That seems to me rather implausible. I do not know why Rome does this. I cannot account for it. It seems as if one wishes to put the lid upon Fatima and to close the case. But that does not work. But, I do not know why Rome has acted in such a manner.”

May this additional witness and testimony now give further trustworthy support to the honest report of Dr. Ingo Dollinger. May these two friends now go down in history as having helped to bring out the fuller truth about Fatima and especially about the Third Secret of Fatima. May Rome finally release to the faithful and to others, as well, the full Third Secret of Fatima – so direly needed now in our time of disorder, and of intimately broken trust.

This post has been updated.

317 thoughts on “A Further Confirmation of Father Dollinger’s Claim about Cardinal Ratzinger and Fatima”

  1. I get confused about this. Is the unreleased part that which says that the apostasy will start at the very top of the Church? But how do we know this if it’s unreleased?

    Anyway, if it is, I can readily see why this pontificate will move heaven and earth to suppress it.

    • Hi Cornelius – Put it in the same category as the assertion that the resignation of Benedict and the election of Pope Francis to the Papacy was free of political pre positioning. Tactics of the evil one, for sure.

        • Hi Cetera – I believe that Benedict stood in the way of the Globalist Agenda, and I think the election of Benedict in 2005 to the Papacy was a surprise to the Globalists. That Pope Francis finished second at that conclave adds credence to that belief that not only Obama, but those who controlled him(Soros for one) took no chances after eight years of Benedict, cajoling him to retire and making sure Pope Francis was installed in the Papacy this time around. But then God had a surprise in store for all of us – the Election of Trump, and once again the Globalist Agenda was frustrated. It is kinda funny when you look at it that way, but I am afraid that anyone who stands in the way of the Globalist Agenda better watch their back, pray for the safety of our President, because if he fails and the Globalists get into power we will all be in big trouble. They will be far worse than any previous totalitarian regime that history has recorded. Total persecution of their enemies, justifying all sorts of atrocities in the name of progress. But all this must happen before Jesus returns.

          • I hear where you are coming from fniper, but here is where I leave you. I do not think God has so immediate and detailed monitoring-mans
            governments and politics. Obama never was powerful or influential enough to direct the Vatican or a Conclave. If you believe our Faith only the Holy Spirit selects the Holy Father.

          • Hi WJRH – I have never assumed that Obama was coordinating the Globalist Agenda. He is the servant not the master of that Agenda. I definitely believe the Holy Spirit has guided every Papal Conclave, prior to this one. He would not promote the pressuring of Benedict to resign, and then the election of a pre-selected candidate. But the master of the Globalist Agenda, Francis promotes, would have no problem influencing the men at that conclave to elect Francis. The Holy Spirit would never select an unholy father, and that is exactly what Francis proves he is with every passing day. That this is part of God’s Plan does not mean that it is the Plan He had for us. The cup of God’s Wrath is filling not through His Will, but the world’s will to love evil in almost everyway possible..

    • Read Antonio Socci “The 4th Secret of Fatima” Because of the detail and fact verification, it reads like a legal brief. Of course, all that makes the book very persuasive.

  2. Not likely, since it would likely identify this pontificate as the source of open apostasy against the faith, and perhaps make clear the time for these destroyers in Rome may be short. May it please God that this is so.

  3. As I watched the release of the third secret of Fatima live as it happened, it was obvious that what was being purported to be the full transcript of the 3rd secret of Fatima was a deception. I had listened to someone who had read the third secret of Fatima in its entirety describe the form of the secret, not the content, but the form, and what was released in June 2000 did not conform to what this person reported to have read. That person was Malachi Martin, and he was very straightforward in describing the third secret as being very short, fitting on one sheet of paper, and in general the primary content of the Secret had to do with Apostasy, not an attack on the Pope. Fr. Martin was becoming ever the more informative on the content of the third Secret at the time when he passed away under questionable circumstances. I have always thought that he was silenced because he was openly speaking about the Secret, and was willing to discount false reports that were circulating at the time of his death. If you are able to listen to the final two interviews he gave on the Art Bell Show, you will hear exactly what made me instantly come to the conclusion that the June 2000 release was a clear deception. The dates of those interviews were 5/4/98 and 7/12/98 and both were accessible on youtube the last time I checked. One question that has never been answered by those who released the 2000 version of the text was why would all the popes prior to that time refrain from releasing what they claimed to be the Third Secret. Malachi Martin generated a great deal of interest in the content of the secret and once he was no longer able to comment or more to the point offer contradiction, it is rather suspicious that such a version was released.

    • I listened to the Art Bell interviews. Martin also predicted a great sign in the sky “soon.” This was about 1997. He said, too, that Native American religions were valid, and other remarks surprising from a former priest.

      But he was a fabulist, a great storyteller who invented a compelling identity for himself. He was not an exorcist, not a Vatican insider, and had no priestly faculties at all after being expelled from the Jesuits. He never saw the Third Secret.

      Of course, he may have heard of Dr. Dollinger’s exchange with Cardinal Ratzinger. It may well be that the entire secret has not been revealed. But I wouldn’t bank on Martin’s claims as proof.

      • Hi Terrye – Did Malachi Martin say the sign would happen with more specificity than that it would happen “soon”? No, he did not, he knew that all things would happen on God’s timetable, but that they would happen he left no doubt. I listened to the interviews live, I recorded them at that time, and I have listened to them many times since then, in fact it is on my to do list this Lenten season during the 100th Anniversary of the Appearance of Mary at Fatima. The thing I noted about Father Malachi Martin, from the first time I heard him on that show, was his clarity and command of the authentic teachings of the Church. And one other thing, he spoke with an authority that marked him as a man speaking the truth. That many of the things he warned were coming did happen also added to his credibility. You speak definitively on many issues, I am sure you will as readily support your claims with equally definitive proof. Proceed at your own pace.

        • While I believe that there is more to the 3rd secret (or perhaps what we have is not the secret at all), I also know that, while perhaps providing clarity for what is going on now, or will soon transpire, it is not necessary for my salvation. Nor is it worth causing any division in the Church, even small ones between members on the internet. Just my 2 cents on this particular discussion. Pax! 🙂

          • Hi Jafin – Seeking the Truth is necessary for salvation, don’t you agree? I don’t think Jesus ever said He came to establish Peace by means of avoiding division. In fact I can’t recall a single incidence of Jesus preferring that kind of Peace under any circumstance. It is a touchy subject though.

          • Heated discussions, arguments, frustration in the pursuit are all good. The peace I’m referring to is the abiding peace of Christ. Perhaps I speak from only my own experience, but sometimes discussions, such as seems to be starting here, have indeed bothered me deeply… too deeply. I just wanted to add what I said as something to consider as the discussion continues, that is all. 🙂

            Regarding what is necessary for salvation, all we need for that is in the Deposit of Faith. While the Fatima apparition may help us to dive deeper into that deposit, knowing what the third secret says does not determine our eternal salvation. I fully encourage continuing the conversation, please do.

          • Hi Jafin – I will indeed consider your post, but, for my part I must make the claim that nothing I post is in the least part meant to be disrespectful or meant to agitate. I also admit that I not been blessed with an overabundance of tact.

          • Not saying anything you’ve said is off, just stating my own experience. And maybe I’m a little too sensitive to what others say. In fact, I probably am. I just wanted to help the conversation continue in a good way since I think there is some truth to be gotten here! 🙂

          • Hi Jafin – You are good host of this party. I agree with you that there is a lot more to be discussed concerning the 3rd Secret, and I will avoid doing anything that could be an obstacle to a lively conversation. I consider Fatima to be the great key to understanding the times through which we pass. That there is a secret that came from heaven, that has not been revealed in full, is very disturbing.

          • That it is, very disturbing. Which is why I want to see where this conversation goes, among those who perhaps know more about this than I do.

          • Jaffin, if Our Lord sends us his mother with a dire warning for all humanity, and confirms that with the most extraordinary miracle since the total eclipse of the sun at the crucifixion during a full moon, don’t you think we ought to take it pretty seriously? Just sayin…

          • Oh, yes, we absolutely should. However, my contention, as should be the contention of every believing Catholic, is that understanding it is NOT necessary for salvation, so don’t get too caught up in the controversy. I believe in justice and for the sake of souls the 3rd secret should be revealed in its entirety, but we don’t need it for salvation. That’s all.

          • If it does, indeed, include Our Lady’s warning about a false council leading to apostasy at the highest levels of the Church, the faithful must know this to defend against it. Martin did read the third secret while he was an aide in John XXIII’s pontificate. The council was about to begin in 1960. It was John’s council and Our Lady was warning it will be in error and lead to apostasy. There could not be greater arrogance than to ignore Our Lady’s instructions to release the secret in 1960 to continue with his modernist council. Once completed, subsequent popes had to hide this warning in order to defend the outcomes of Vatican II. That also is why John and John Paul were “canonized” in order to solidify the “legitimacy” of Vatican II. You can bet Paul VI will be next. After all he’s the one who approved–and first celebrated–the really terrible novus ordo. What must Our Lord and Lady be thinking about this decades-long lie leading to today’s almost daily heresies from the top. THAT’S why it’s important. This awareness can save souls from error. Think about how many have been lost since the great errors since Vatican II. All you have to do is look at where we are today, what even the pope is saying. “Reverse engineer” events back to the failure to release the third secret in 1960 and you can pretty much determine what was truly in it.

        • I believe he said to watch the sky. For 20 years?

          But I don’t see a purpose in debating what he might have meant. I base my opinion on his pattern of lying and research I did at the time that included confirmation that he had never been incardinated or granted faculties after leaving the Jesuits. I have a friend who was invited to one of Martin’s “Masses in his apart. But he had an intuition that he should not receive Holy Communion there. This was before we had seen the letter from Rome that said he had no priestly faculties.

          We all assess others based on our knowledge and experience. To me, Martin seems the classic sociopath and liar. It’s astonishing how persuasive and sincere they can seem.

          If you have derived spiritual benefit from reading and listening to him, I am glad. I just think there are far surer guides. Pax.

          • Hi Terrye – Sure, why not, it is up to God not man when He sends a sign to mankind. Just think how long the Jews awaited their Messiah, and yet He came at the perfect moment in history. Would you at least agree that if Father Martin proved himself to be an enemy of those relentlessly pursued a Papacy like that which we have with Francis, might they have wanted to undermine the source that was revealing their evil agenda. Reading the book written by Malachi Martin about the Jesuits, sure makes understanding Francis a lot easier. Windswept House, as it turned out, also brought the resignation of a Pope to the forefront, another reference to a future where such an event would precede the election of a pope like Francis. That would two for two on my scorecard.

      • Malachi believed in Garabandal. That’s why he expected the ‘sign in the sky’. As far as I know Garabandal has been condemned by the diocese.

        • Hi Chloe – Here is what EWTN has on their website in regards to this –

          “It seems, therefore, that notwithstanding the decisions of two commissions accepted by the bishops of Santander, that there are reasonable grounds for individual Catholics to find Garabandal credible. The children themselves predicted that the message of Garabandal would be approved with difficulty, but in sufficient time to spread it. Perhaps this means that the “warning” (a clearly supernatural event) must occur first for approval to be given.”

          • Padre Pio, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, Pope Paul VI, and Fr. Malachi Martin all believed in Garabandal.

          • Martin was a fraud. Wouldn’t trust a thing the man says. Let me refer you to the 1966 LOOK magazine article.

          • Even saints aren’t perfect on Earth. Both Saint Pope John Paul II and Mother Angelica were into the Charismatic Movement. They lived long enough to change their minds.

          • Canonized saints practiced heroic virtue and humility. Living in the state of grace they had a clear and supernatural horror of sin. Even the slightest sin would cause them to do great penance to overcome. They may still have some faults but not sin.

          • Many great saints lived a life of great sin before they converted and lived lives of great penance and holiness. In some ways,there’s nothing little about a saint.
            The glory belongs to God, who gives grace to turn from sin.

          • Being a saint does not mean one is impeccable in life. Saints sin. Saints are mistaken from time to time.
            From St. Peter on down. Unless their names are Jesus or Mary, they are not perfect.
            Let’s not make them more than human on Earth.

          • You ask the question, then you answer it. I don’t know that you’re sincere about it. Where do you get that erroneous opinion?

            You are wrong. No one, no one will go to Heaven unless completely purified of all sin. That’s what Purgatory is for for the rest of us who don’t damn ourselves to Hell. I didn’t say one is born without original sin, only Mary has that favor. We are all born in sin and by the grace of God we can become holy. You have to want it.

            The saints go straight to Heaven. Not all those who lived a holy life are declared a saint by the Church. Many in fact are on the list of very holy lives but not canonized. One is not declared a saint unless their lives are carefully scrutinized and the Church only declares one is a saint after exhaustive investigation and miracles that prove that one is in Heaven. If you have an example of a saint who continued to sin name them. That is not possible. One has to either be holy and not sin, that’s a saint, or be good and sins, the later is not a declared saint and must either do penance on earth or in Purgatory.

          • You are confusing people living on Earth with the Saints in Heaven.
            ON EARTH, there have only been two sinless people. Jesus and Mary.
            The question was rhetorical. All saints have sinned because every non-divine human on Earth sins. People who have died and were canonized sinned on Earth, confessed and were forgiven just like all of us. They did not live in a perpetual state of grace before dying.

          • No, I am not the one confused. I think that today’s Catholics are under educated about what holiness really means. Saint does not mean we have to be born without original sin. We become holy and stop sinning when we choose to give ourselves completely to Jesus, who will make us holy if we will let Him. Many saints went to confession daily because they hated sin. Yes, there is such a thing as living in a perpetual state of grace for a saint. The Church has some very great saints. A saint usually does not know they’re saints, their humility would hide that from them. They often said that they are the worst sinners in the world. But we know that God keeps them humble and they see themselves as God sees them, not man.

            We are all called to be great saints. Mother Angelica used to say.

            Listen, we are all born with original sin that Baptism takes away, leaving us a free will to choose to sin or to not sin. Catholics have the great favor to have the sanctifying sacraments of the Church to make use of and to help grow in holiness.

            We are all sinners. Some bigger, some smaller, more rarely, there are some, who surrender their entire wills heart, mind and soul to God in everything. A saint wants to stop sinning, wants it.
            They suffer, they pray, they sacrifice, they love their fellow man, they accept everything God sends them with complete love. The grace that they receive from God, draws them closer to Him, where they are acutely aware of the slightest sin in them. A saint is so holy, that they resemble Jesus on earth in every way. They have already purified themselves of their sins and they hate sin more than anything else because sin separates them from God.
            Even the things they’ve touched, used, and their body itself retains some of the holiness poured into them from the grace of God. We have relics of them, 1st, 2nd, 3rd class relics that have power because of their holiness through God’s grace.

            Read the lives of the saints and learn how much they suffered for their own sins and the sins of others for the love of God. We need to know what they did to overcome themselves, so that we can imitate them. Pray to the saints and ask for help.

          • I had it from an old CAF post. Do you have anything stating that the Bishops of Bishop of Santander have stated that there is supernatural phenomenon going on? Not from a Garabandal site, but from the Bishops or the Diocese?
            And perhaps stating that something you disagree with is a “lie” is not very conducive to conversation.

          • All they’re saying is that it is inconclusive. There has NEVER been a public condemnation of Garabandal, unlike Medjugorje. You need to provide a source that states that the bishops have condemned Garabandal. Did you even read the article that you yourself posted?

          • I posted it above, I gave my source and a back up citation TO the source.
            You simply don’t WANT the Bishops to have stated that “The conclusion of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural validity to such apparitions.”
            Live the dream Eva, but I’m done here.

          • Well, the FACT is he lied too ! In 1987 Bishop Del Val Gallo ordered a new investigation,because he opposed the first fake one, and then sent it to the Vatican ! So this bishop falsely stated all were in agreement, and they were NOT ! and since you need the facts, 3 other Bishops either believed in it or refused to condemn it ! ( Bishops Beitia, DeCabo, and Zamora) and Zamora held 2 events celebrating in the church ,with Garabandal kissed items by our blessed Mother !

          • You’re promoting your FB page.
            In fact, it looks like your entire Disqus profile is devoted to promoting it on this thread.

          • No, just a place for those with legit questions to get answers. I devote my life to our Blessed Mother and her messages. How about you ?

          • All Mr. Hudson is doing is stating facts. What profit is he making just because he posted a link to a Facebook page which is helping many people in their faith journey? What’s wrong with you? Since when is promoting the truth a bad thing? You’ve been shown the error in what you’ve posted and you’re still in denial. You can’t refute the facts so now you try to go ad hominem on a man who has done nothing but given his life for his faith. He’s shown where you are wrong and you don’t have the humility to be honest with yourself. Very sad.

          • Trust me, you’re not a better judge of a soul than Saint Padre Pio, and he became Conchita’s closest friend , leaving her many personal articles upon his death.

          • That St. Padre Pio had such a close personal relationship with Conchita that he gave her personal articles

          • Conchita was given a letter by Padre Bernardino Cennamo, the Superior of the Capuchin Order, in which he said that PADRE PIO told him that he had seen THE GREAT MIRACLE. He also sent her the white veil that covered his face while he lay in state in the morning of his death.
            Conchita recounts: “I had the veil in front of me, as I was writing later that evening. When suddenly the whole room became filled with fragrance, the perfume so strong I started to cry.”

          • Netmilsmom has answered that question. So have the bishops. . What anyone else believed is besides the point. The bishops have the authority. No one else. This thread could run and run. I’m bored with it

          • Hi Chloe – Before you fall asleep, could you tell me what the Bishops concluded about Garabandal. Did the condemn it as being unworthy of belief?

          • Hi Nm – Please point to anything in that post which delegitimizes what occurred at Garabandal. Try to be specific, and use your own words if possible.

          • “All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.”
            My regards in Christ,

            Jose Vilaplana
            Bishop of Santander
            Oct. 11, 1996″

          • Hi Nm – Are those who believe what is reported to have happened at Garabandal really happened committing a sin?

          • No, because no other apparition in history has had the backing of so many SAINTS AND POPES as Garabandal !
            Saint ( Padre ) Pio, Saint (Pope )John Paul II, Saint Teresa of Calcutta, Saint Jose Marie Escriva, Saint Madre Maravillas, Blessed Pope Paul VI, Pope Benedict XVI, , Venerable Marthe Robin, Venerable Fr. Ciszek , Venerable Padre Nieto, Cardinal Ottaviani (Vatican Prefect of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) , Arch Bishop Carlos Sierra of Madrid, Spain, Arch Bishop Manuel Lopez of Mexico, Bishop of Fatima Joao Venancio, Mother Angelica and others. We’re in good company !

          • As far as I know,there has been no ruling.People questioned Joey Lemongenos new eyes,after his passing June 18,2014,which also happens to be one of the dates of a worded Apparition .

          • NO ! The second Commission under Bishop Del Val Gallo is WHY the Vatican has never ruled against it ! He showed proof of the super natural events , and the Vatican agreed to wait until the date of the Miracle before a final ruling ! Thank God for the real second investigation ,with facts and interviews, not like the first one WHICH NEVER WAS SENT TO THE VATICAN !

          • Hi Glenn – I have never heard a credible case against Garabandal being authentic. I wonder why people claim there has been one.

          • They have been mislead by the first Bishop and his fraudulent commission, and never bother to research what happened after he died. If you scroll down , I have posted under a question by Stewart Davies, many facts how the first commission lied and hid the truth from the Vatican. Trust me, the Vatican refused to rule against this for good reason. In two days Conchita after meeting Cardinal Ottavio & Pope Paul VI, and Padre Pio, convinced them all it was true. And who’s a better judge that a SAINT WHO CAN REAL YOUR SOUL ??? Some people on this board , lol ! Time is growing short now, the Warning and Miracle are in the foreseeable future, and all here will tremble after the warning, knowing they have offended God with their sins, and those who called our Blessed Mother a liar. God bless.

          • Hi Glenn – Thanks for your responses, Glenn, I hope what was promised at Garabandal, turns the hearts of men back to their Creator.

          • NO ! The first one never even filed with the Vatican. I guess they couldn’t back up their lies. @nd one proved there was a supernatual events, and WAS sent to the Vatican.

          • You’re right, Chloe. When Catholics start contradicting a local bishop who, after investigation, pronounces an apparition fraudulent, we are headed down a dangerous road. It was the (several) decisions of the ordinaries in Medjugorje long, long ago, for example, that convinced me that whole enterprise was a hoax, and everything I’ve seen since then tells me the bishops of Mostar were 100% correct. I believe it scandalous the Vatican hasn’t yet put an end to this circus, but more than anything else, that may have to do with the old adage “the bigger they are, the harder they fall.” Quite a large industry has grown up surrounding the nonsense at Medjugorje.

          • Mother Angelica received one of her healing from a trip to Garabandal, and was a huge believer, and had Joey on her show 3 times !

          • I have never had a facebook page (nor a cell phone) and don’t intend to start. Since the page requires log in, could you please recommend another (or other sources). Thank you.

          • It was prophesied at Garabandal that Lomangino would recover his sight before his death (or something like that).

          • Hi Kevin – I think it was that he would see the miracle, not that he would recover his sight before his death. If Joey is in heaven, he might very well see the sign promised at Garabandal, when it occurs. Those in Purgatory might as well. I hope so, because I pray for the souls in Purgatory regularly.

          • “You shall see on the day of the Miracle.” is the quote by the seers.
            He is no longer here to see anything.

          • Maybe he can, maybe he can’t but he was specifically called out, which either means that he would be the only one who could see this after death or the local Bishop is right and Garabandal has nothing supernatural connected to it.
            All eight bishops of Santander have from 1961 up to now, supported by the Holy See in Rome, publicly declared that no supernatural apparitions had taken place in Garabandal. I’ll go with them.

          • fniper what I have heard is that Conchita gave a piece of paper with the date of the miracle (warning, whichever) to Cardinal Ottaviano, who put it into a drawer somewhere, deciding that when the date passes and there is no miracle, then Garabandal can be officially condemned.
            Do you know if this meeting between Conchita and Cardinal Ottaviano really took place, or if the date was revelaed to him?

          • Hi htb – I do recall hearing that, but I don’t know if that actually occurred. It would be helpful if it actually did though. Thanks for pointing this out.

          • That is not correct, the information was given verbally in an interview. In January of 1966, Conchita was called to Rome by Prefect of the Holy Office (now the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani and was interrogated for two and a half hours by the Cardinal and other members of the Holy Office. Conchita later said that during the interrogation everything about the apparitions passed before her eyes, as though “on film.” Cardinal Ottaviani was satisfied and the overall impression made by Conchita was favorable.
            Quite unexpectedly, on the following day, the Holy Father himself actually received Conchita and repeated verbally what he had said to her the preceding day through his personal representative. These are incontrovertible facts, which the author is in position to substantiate if need be. What has been affirmed repeatedly and challenged just as often is true: the Pope did say: “I bless you and with me the whole Church blesses you.” — Our Lady Comes to Garabandal, p. 201

          • Wrong! The official position is that the supernatural nature of the alleged events has not been established and NOT that they have been established as non-supernatural. There is a big difference!

          • “The question having been closely examined and a decision having been reached by Your Excellency, the Sacred Congregation has come to the conclusion that there is no reason to intervene in this affair.

            Cardinal Ottaviani

            Cardinal Seper, Prefect of the congregation For the Sacred Doctrine Of the Faith wrote this letter to Archbishop Philip M. Hannan of New Orleans, Louisiana on April 21, 1970.


            “This office has received you letter of April 1970 in which you expressed justifiable apprehension about the diffusion of the Garabandal movement in your Archdiocese and in which you asked for clear and reliable guidelines from the Holy See for dealing with this phenomenon.

            “The Holy See share your perception about the manifest and increasing confusion due to the diffusion of this movement among the faithful and desires with this letter to clarify its position on the matter.

            “This Sacred Congregation despite requests form various Bishops and faithful has always refused to define the supernatural character of the events of Garabandal. After the definitive negative judgment issued by the Curia of Santander this Sacred Congregation, after attentive examination of the proceedings forwarded to this office has often praised the prudence that characterized the method followed in the examination but has still decided to leave direct responsibility for the matter to the local Ordinary.

            “The Holy see has always held that the conclusions and dispositions of the Bishop of Santander were sufficiently secure guidelines for the Christian people and indications for the Bishops to order to dissuade people from participating in pilgrimages and other acts of devotion that are based on claims connected with or founded on the presumed apparitions and messages of Garabandal. On March 10, 1996; this Sacred Congregation wrote a letter to this effect to the Bishop of Santander who had also asked for a more explicit declaration of the Holy See to the matter.

            “However promoters of the Garabandal movement have tried to minimize the decisions and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Santander. THIS SACRED CONGREGATION WANTS IT TO BE CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THE BISHOP OF SANTANDER HAS BEEN AND CONTINUES TO BE THE ONLY ONE WITH COMPLETE JURISDICTION IN THIS MATTER AND THE HOLY SEE HAS NO INTENTION OF EXAMINING THIS QUESTION ANY FURTHER, since it holds that the examinations already carried out are sufficient as well as are the official declarations of the Bishop of Santander. There is no truth to the statement that the Holy See has named an Official Papal Private Investigator of Garabandal and affirmations attributed to the anonymous personage to the extent that the verification of the Garabandal apparitions lies completely in the hands of the Holy Father Pope Paul VI and other such expressions that aim at undermining the authority of the decisions of the Bishop of Santander are completely unfounded.

            “In order to reply to certain doubts that you expressed in your letter this Sacred Congregation wishes to assert: that the Holy See has never approved even indirectly the Garabandal movement, that it has never encouraged or blessed Garabandal promoters or centers. Rather the Holy See deplores that fact that certain persons and Institutions persist in formatting the movement in obvious contradiction with the dispositions of ecclesiastical authority and thus disseminate confusion among the people especially among the simple and defenseless.

            “From what has been said so far you will easily realize that though this Sacred Congregation certainly agrees with the contents of the note of May 10, 1969 (as published in various countries and especially in the French magazine LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIC September 21, 1966, n:1547 p. 821) It must say that it is inexact to attribute the part of the text that deals with the lack of supernatural character of the events of Garabandal of the Sacred Congregation which has always striven to abstain from any direct declaration on the question precisely because it did not consider it necessary to do so after the clear and express decisions of the Bishop of Santander. This is the genuine meaning of the letter written on January 21, 1970 by the Most Reverend Paul Phillippe, Secretary of this Sacred Congregation to the editor in chief of LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE.

            “In order to contribute further to your pastoral action in this matter, this office is enclosing other essential documents already published in other countries such as Spain: The two official notices of the Bishop of Santander, two letters of the Sacred Congregation to the same Bishop and a letter to the Apostolic Delegate to Mexico. This office hopes in this letter to have clarified a question that concerns not just your Archdiocese but also other dioceses.

            “With sentiments of deepest esteem and cordial respect

            “I am devotedly yours


            “Francis Cardinal Seper Prefect

            also signed:

            “Paul Philippe , Secretary”

            On October 11, 1996 the new bishop, Jose Vilaplana, again placed his prohibition on the alleged apparitions and said it is final.

            “Some people have been coming directly to the Diocese of Santander (Spain) asking about the alleged apparitions of Garabandal and especially for the answer about the position of the hierarchy of the Church concerning these apparitions.

            I need to communicate that:

            All the bishops of the diocese since 1961 through 1970 agreed that there was no supernatural validity for the apparitions.
            In the month of December of 1977 Bishop Dal Val of Santander, in union with his predecessors, stated that in the six years of being bishop of Santander there were no new phenomena.
            The same bishop, Dal Val, let a few years go by to allow the confusion or fanaticism to settle down, and then he initiated a commission to examine the apparitions in more depth. The conclusion of the commission agreed with the findings of the previous bishops. That there was no supernatural validity to such apparitions.
            At the time of the conclusions of the study, in 1991, I was installed bishop in the diocese. So during my visit to Rome, as limina visit which happened in the same year, I presented to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith the study and I asked for pastoral direction concerning this case.
            On Nov. 28, 1992, the Congregation sent me an answer saying that after examining the documentation, there was no need for direct intervention (by the Vatican) to take away the jurisdiction of the ordinary bishop of Santander in this case. Such a right belongs to the ordinary. Previous declarations of the Holy See agree in this finding. In the same letter they suggested that if I find it necessary to publish a declaration, that I reconfirm that there was no supernatural validity in the alleged apparitions, and this will make a unanimous position with my predecessors.
            Given that the declarations of my predecessors who studied the case have been clear and unanimous, I don’t find it necessary to have a new public declaration that would raise notoriety about something which happened so long ago. However, I find it necessary to rewrite this report as a direct answer to the people who ask for direction concerning this question, which is now final: I agree with [and] I accept the decision of my predecessors and the direction of the Holy See.
            In reference to the Eucharistic celebration in Garabandal, following the decision of my predecessors, I ruled that Masses can be celebrated only in the parish church and there will be no references to the alleged apparitions and visiting priests who want to say Mass must have approval from the pastor, who has my authorization. It’s my wish that this information is helpful to you.
            My regards in Christ,

            Jose Vilaplana

            Bishop of Santander

            Oct. 11, 1996

          • This letter was written in 1970, prior to the second investigation in 1987. Thus, it was written under a false premise, based on incomplete facts from a poor initial investigation (recalling to mind that the girls were not even questioned in the first investigation, nor their parents, etc.). Over the past 30 years, the bishops have been finding more and more favor with Garabandal, as the facts come out. Upon retiring from office, Bishop del Val (who commissioned the second investigation) stated that the message of Garabandal was “important” and “theologically correct.”

          • The original ban on Garabandal resulted from a slipshod investigation in which the visionaries weren’t even interviewed. That ban was overturned in 1989, and the only restriction was that there was to be no mention of the alleged apparitions IN THE PARISH CHURCH. One participant in that original

            ‘investigation’ was Fr. Juan del Val Gallo, later to become Bishop of Santander. During the last nine years of his time in office, he met with some of the visionaries and many times stated his personal belief in the authenticity of the alleged events. A strange thing for a Successor of the Apostles to do in regard to something that the Church had categorically denounced. Even stranger was the involvement of his successor, Bishop Jimenez who authorised celebrations for the fiftieth anniversary of the first apparitions of St. Michael and Our Lady, and permitted visiting priests to speak about the apparitions. If, as you and others demand, Garabandal had been formally condemned, I think it is highly likely that Bishop JImenez would have known about it. Wouldn’t you agree?

          • Seriously? Are you new to this site? Bishops speaking in support of things the Church has condemned is almost a daily occurrence nowadays


            The Bishop was dead set against approving this apparition from day one ! Did you know that the very priest who they sent to investigate, came back a believer ! Then RESIGNED! When that didn’t work, they sent doctors, but the doctors were dumb founded as to how the girls in ecstasy were impervious to pain ! They were burned with matches, stuck with needles, pinched, has sand thrown in their eyes (but didn’t blink) darn near torture ! But they too failed to explain this as a “natural event” or the girls imagination. Now the Bishop is so mad, he even REFUSED the testimony OF POLICE CIVIL GUARDS. The worst part, they REFUSED to interview A SINGLE PERSON ! HOW CAN YOU CALL THIS A VALID INVESTIGATION WHEN THEY NEVER INTERVIEWED THE GIRLS , THE PARISH PRIESTS, the girl’s parents, family, friends, other villagers ??? There were hundreds of witnesses who begged to testify, and they would not hear them for fear of convincing the public it WAS TRUE ! There was such a LACK OF EVIDENCE to support his position, that NO REPORT WAS EVER SENT TO THE VATICAN !! So when the original Bishop’s finding is not favorable for approval, many lost interest in Garabandal and worse yet, our Blessed Mother’s messages.

            Other Bishops offended ! Now add the second message of the Blessed Mother that said “Many cardinals, many bishops and many priests are on the road to perdition and are taking many souls with them ” WOW, so the very people in charge of the investigation, are being called out by Mary, and they don’t like being “knocked off their pedestal ” of reverence in the peoples eyes. And you wonder why the approval did not happen then.

            Thank God, that the likes of Pope Paul VI, Padre Pio, kept hope alive because of their belief in the early days, or this would have been dead and buried. As the evidence mounted that Mary was appearing, the best that they could do is say that the apparitions were ” Non-constat de supernaturalitate – It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin. “. This is just a few reasons the early generations had little interest ,until Joey Lomangino went to confession to Padre Pio ,and came back to America and started his apostolate.


            Padre Lucio Rodrigo was consulted by the members of the “Special Commission” in the second half of the month of August 1961. Following this encounter with the renowned Spanish theologian, Don Juan Antonio del Val,( the future bishop of Santander ). . ., he resigned from the “Commission.”
            [Excerpted from ‘Garabandal’ Book, page 100]

            What does it say about this ” Commission” when its OWN investigative Priest resigns ? Del Val Gallo later becomes the Bishop of Santandar ,and he lifts the ban on priests to say mass there, and more importantly ,he initiates a new investigation Committee ,who findings are much different from the first bogus Commission, and they are sent to the Vatican. ( * also note the first Commission ,never sent a report to the Vatican because they could not verify their claims, because they had no witnesses interviewed,and none who supported their lie. )

          • How reliable is this First Commission ? Let a main witness speak:

            Upon presenting the memoirs of Juan Alveraz Seco, Brigadier Chief of the Civil Guard, and the man responsible for maintaining order in the village during the apparitions, Anotnio Pacio, M.S.C. Professor at the University of Barcelona writes:
            “ I would like to only state one thing to forestall the objections on many based on various official communiqués coming from the Diocese of Santandar. These communiqués should have been preceded by a substantial interrogation of the myriad witnesses”
            “Among these witnesses , one who stands out is Juan Alvarez Seco, Brigadier Chief of the Civil Guard,who is the author of these memoirs. He was present from the beginning to 1962,and at 1965 at the time of the Message, and he had the duty of informing his superiors and the Civil Governor and all that was going on in Garabandal, while at the same time he had to maintain order in the village. “
            “Well, none of the Commissioners, who rejected the supernatural events at Garabandal, ever asked him to testify, nor did they deign to even interview him, who was the “official informant” to the authorities. This detail suffices to illustrate the “true and impartiality “ with which the various episcopal commissions endeavored to inform themselves. Juan Seco : “ THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN BELIEVING WITNESSES, BUT ONLY THE UNBELIEVING. THEY WANTED AT ALL COST, TO DISCREDIT THE MANIFISTATIONS, AND IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS, THAT HAD TO ELIMINATE ANY WITNESS,INCLINED TO BE FAVORABLE, NO MATTER WHAT HIS COMPETENCY”.

            From “The Village Speaks” pgs 69 – 70.

          • Thank you for a great response. There was also a psychiatrist, whose name I have forgotten, who participated in the original ‘investigation’, (using the term advisedly!). He also took the view that the girls were faking the whole thing. He later changed his position completely and vowed that he would spend the rest of his life begging Our Lady’s forgiveness for the part he played in trying to derail Garabandal and the vitally important message it conveys.

          • Dr Luis Morales Noriega in 1983 publicly acknowledged the authenticity of the apparitions. Thereafter, he became a fervent supporter of the apparitions of Garabandal and gave several public lectures in testimony of its truthfulness. He witnessed the apparitions and principal doctor appointed by the local bishop.
            He said : “Now I see the existential reality of Our Lady in Garabandal. I think of Garabandal as Fatima: a gift of Divine Providence for humanity. Garabandal truly is a gift to us from Christ through his Mother…” At the end of the interview he answered my last question by saying, “Oh, yes! Garabandal has been a manifestation of Divine Grace…!”

          • WRONG TERMINOLOGY ! The Church has a very strict and precise terminology for judging alleged apparitions (very few apparitions are officially approved). According to the norms of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, alleged apparitions are classified in one of three categories:
            Constat de supernaturalitate – It is certain that the events are of supernatural origin.
            Constat de non supernaturalitate – It is certain that the events are not of supernatural origin.
            Non-constat de supernaturalitate – It is not certain that the events are of supernatural origin. Garabandal has been ruled the third by biased bishops, but NEVER agreed to by the Vatican. THATS WHY IT HAS NEVER BEEN CONDEMNED, THE VATICAN NEVER RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN INVESTIGATION BY THE EARLY BISHOPS . THEY COULDN’T BACK UP THEIR LIES, POPE PAUL VI KNEW THIS AND BROUGHT CONCHITA IN FOR A PERSONAL INTERVIEW, AND HE SAID OF HER : “Conchita, I, the Pope, bless you and with me the whole Church blesses you.”

            Garabandal has never been condemned as is clearly stated in the nota of Bishop Eugenio Beitia Aldazabal dated 8 July 1965 — “we have found no grounds for an ecclesiastical condemnation” (And this has been specifically confirmed by Bishop del Val Gallo in the video entitled Garabandal – the Eyewitnesses.)

          • I quoted the bishops above.
            Believe what you want and there is no need to yell.
            Medjudgorje and Garabandal fans always take it to 11 when their rationalizations are questioned.

          • Sorry, Sometimes you need to wake people up with the facts,or they don’t pay attention. Many here have opinions based on heresay,or misinformation. Now you finally have an authority on all Garabandal facts and information. Hope some will open their eyes and ears to the truth.

          • And where does that quote say that his “seeing” would be before his death? Is it not being assumed that is what is meant? Such an assumption suggests that in the afterlife souls don’t see, which I find hard to believe.

          • Well exactly! He was promised he’d be cured. He wasn’t. And I’m not impressed by the ridiculous argument “he can see in heaven”. I did not dismiss Garabandal out of hand. I was an avid follower for over 20 years. A number of things should disturb anyone who believes it. Two examples are: Why did the ‘lady ‘ tell the children not to bring blessed objects? What other seers performed the extraordinary acrobatics and contortions the Garabandal children did? Etc

          • Chloe: You’re so right! I remember watching a video of the “seers” in Garabandal walking backwards on their knees. I couldn’t help but get a sick, sinking feeling in my stomach that it looked so demonic! I just couldn’t shake the feeling that devils were contorting themselves in ugly, unnatural bodily positions! I wasn’t sure what to believe about Garabandal up till then, but after seeing that video, I knew it wasn’t from Heaven!

            And I always wondered what happened to Joey Lomangino. Just one “prophecy” that isn’t fulfilled destroys the credibility of any so-called apparition.

          • Well, your memory is failing you, they fell on their knees on rocks to prove they felt NO PAIN, but did not walk on their knees backwards. They DID walk backwards though, but for a reason you don’t understand.
            The Girls always watched the Virgin Mary as they walked, sometimes forward and sometimes backward over the rocky cow paths. The walking backward especially (which is more impressive) has been suggested as diabolical by opponents of Garabandal. When in fact ,the girls always walked backwards away from the blessed sacrament, rather than turning their backs on it . Just because the girls walked backwards does not indicate anything demonic, especially when they carried crucifixes and recited the rosary while walking ! These ecstatic marches were not a diabolical sign but instead ,the opposite, another sign of authenticity of the apparitions, allowed by Heaven and also as a reminder of our obligations before the Blessed Sacrament.

          • As far as Joey, he might be part of the prophecy that you failed to mention her. On December 6, 1962,Conchita had a 90 minute ecstasy around 5:30 in the afternoon after which, she provided two more pieces of information regarding the Miracle: 1) One day, before the Miracle, something will happen that will cause many people to stop believing in the apparitions of Garabandal. The doubts and desertions will not be due to an excessive delay of the Miracle.

            Jesus comments on belief of Garabandal before the Miracle
            From Conchita, Diary pg. 204, 1966: He [Jesus] replied…”I want to tell you, Conchita, that before the miracle occurs, you will suffer much, for few people will believe you. Your own family will believe that you have deceived them. I am the one who wants all this, as I have already told you, for your sanctification and so that the world may comply with the message. I wish to advise you that the remainder of your life will be a continual suffering. Do not be freightened. In your suffering you will find me and also Mary whom you love very much… I will be with whoever suffers for me.”

          • Our Lady NEVER said don’t bring blessed objects, she said don’t bring her ROCKS ,as the children FIRST brought her the rocks from the cow path to kiss. She DID ask for “sacramentals” to kiss. (Rosaries, wedding rings, religious medals ). NO where is it written she said what you are claiming,if it did ,you would have provided it, and you didn’t.

          • Also there are always “odd” uncommon events at every apparition. The Virgin of the Revelation to Bruno Cornacchiola, where the children were too heavy to be moved by their own father during the apparition. ( same as Garabandal ! ). Or how about St. Bernadette , at Lourdes, digging in the ground with her hands , that wasn’t natural was it ?

          • They didn’t perform “extraordinary acrobatics and contortions” They actually seemed to be in a beautiful ballet of grace. Also, you didn’t do your homework. During the church-approved apparition of Our Lady of the Revelation, the children were too heavy to be moved by their own father during the apparition, exactly like the visionaries at Garabandal at times.

          • The shenanigans at Garabandal bear a striking resemblance to startlingly phenomena exhibited by the many false seers who proliferated at Lourdes after the end of the apparitions there.

            If you ask me, those grotesque contortions have more in common with demonic possessions than states of Holy ecstasy

          • Not really. It could very well be that he now sees everything. The prediction of the restoration of his sight never claimed that restoration would be in this life.

          • He was singled out. So either none of the others will see after death or his earthly sight would be restored. Also Father Lius Andreu, is reported to have seen a vision of the coming “miracle” but died without any know cause the next day. Conchita said that his body will be found uncorrupt after the “Great Miracle”. His body has since been exposed but he is not uncorrupt.
            We are not required to believe in approved apparations. I have no problem with not believing in Garabandal and no good Catholic should be shocked when another Catholic does not believe in one not specifically approved by the Vatican.

          • Once again, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the published “promise” that even suggests the promise was for this life. Nor does it say how and when it would occur. In fact, Joey was nòt promised his sight eould be restored! He was promised that he would see the Miracle. There is a big difference between the two claims.

            No, it is true we are not required to believe in apparitions. However, that does not give us the right to make false charges and claims of our own. Just because something doesn’t correspond perfectly with our definition of what that something should be doesn’t make it false. As an earthly example, most people would claim the earth is round like a ball and have the idea it is a perfect sphere. The truth, however, is the earth is skightly pear shaped. Are all those who think the earth is a true sphere totally wrong. Of course not, because the earth IS round and BASICALLY spherical – it is a ball with a bulge in it. It is likewise true that the Powers of Heaven akways make things happen according to God’s will and WE often misinterpret the words, the meaning or both. St. Bernadette’s body gas been reported as incorrupt, but that depends on your definition and perception of “incorrupt”. In Vernadette’s case, the last exhumation revealed some patches of skin that were xiscolored, some darker than others, and some places where the flesh was beginning to degrade, but – for all intents and purposes – her body remains essentially incorruot. One last thing, i have always been skeptical of Garabandal’s validity, but I’m not going to say it is not as if I had been given a personal, irrefutable, supernatural message categirically stating it is false.

          • Catholics rationalize so well. If we want to believe, we will find a way.

            Sorry about the typo. Incorrupt. The U and I keys are right next to each other.
            Father Lius Andreu’s body is not incorrupt.

          • There are MANY prophecies that most never bothered to learn about. Maybe this is one of the most important ones, pertaining to Joey and Conchita, that came from JESUS himself ! ( and some bible quotes that are applicable ). Joey’s passing may be foretold and on purpose !

            “My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor your ways My ways, says the Lord. For as the heavens are exalted above the earth, So are My ways exalted above your ways, And My thoughts above your thoughts.” (Is. 55: 8-9)

            “Oh, the depth of the riches Of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments, And how unsearchable His ways.” (Rom. 11:33)

            On December 6, 1962,Conchita had a 90 minute ecstasy around 5:30 in the afternoon after which, she provided two more pieces of information regarding the Miracle: 1) One day, before the Miracle, something will happen that will cause many people to stop believing in the apparitions of Garabandal. The doubts and desertions will not be due to an excessive delay of the Miracle.

            Jesus comments on belief of Garabandal before the Miracle
            From Conchita, Diary pg. 204, 1966: He [Jesus] replied…”I want to tell you, Conchita, that before the miracle occurs, you will suffer much, for few people will believe you. Your own family will believe that you have deceived them. I am the one who wants all this, as I have already told you, for your sanctification and so that the world may comply with the message. I wish to advise you that the remainder of your life will be a continual suffering. Do not be freightened. In your suffering you will find me and also Mary whom you love very much… I will be with whoever suffers for me.”

          • The ruling from the Vatican would be that nothing supernatural is going on, with a further explanation that the site and apparition are not to be venerated.
            Some apparitions are approved by the local Bishops yet have not been ruled on by the Vatican, the Bishop being the first step to investigation.
            Once through the Vatican process there are three rulings they give, Supernatural, Not Supernatural or Non constat de supernaturalitate (still open to investigation).
            Since all the the Bishops over Garabandal have said there was nothing supernatural going on there, the Vatican has no reason to rule on it.

          • If you don’t want to believe the Bishop, that’s your right but I’m just passing along the information.

          • Please clearly state your sources. What Bishop has said there is nothing supernatural going on in Garabandal? Perhaps you are getting Garabandal confused with Medjugorje which the bishops HAVE come out and said that there is nothing supernatural going on in Medjugorje. Proof: Please state your source regarding the condemnation of Garabandal by the local bishop or bishops.

          • MISINFORMATION ! I HAVE READ MOSTLY OPINIONS , NOT FACTS HERE. If you want some facts let me know. Few people in the world have my personal connection and information about Garabandal, Joey & Conchita. I have known Joey since 1973, friends with Conchita since 1993, a have over 600 files of REAL FACTS to share ,with those with an open mind.

        • One does not necessarily have to believe in Garabandal to expect a “sign in the sky.” Christ Himself mentioned, the “Sign of the Son of Man” in the sky when the end times approach

          • True enough. But Malachi did. I’m not knocking him, I have a load of his books and I believed in it too before I woke up. And that is the last comment I make on this subject here. the Bishop of Santander has the last word as far as I’m concerned. He is the legitimate authority.

          • I believed in it too for a while. Medijourie too but that was mostly due to my parents. I’m not sure if they still do. I’m honestly afraid to bring it up.

            But I might be pleasantly surprised. I was avoiding talking to them about Pope Francis and the Exhortation over Christmas but as we waited for my flight my dad asked my opinion and as it turned it they (for the most part) shared mine

        • The late Bishop of Santander, Most Rev.Juan del Val Gallo stated that “Condemned” is a word the Church has never used in connection with Garabandal. He also said; “The message of Garabandal is theologically correct, and very important.” The only reservation he had was with the alleged statement by Our Lady; “Many bishops and priests are on the road to perdition, and taking large numbers of souls with them.” Bisop del Val felt that “That was little harsh.”

        • That is not true,Conchita received a letter, dated February12, 2007, from Archbishop Carlos Sierra of Oviedo, then the acting Apostolic Administrator for the Diocese of Santander, which read:

          “I want you to know that I am open to receiving and considering all information about Garabandal, and would like to continue—as long as our Holy Father wishes me to serve as Apostolic Administrator—the work that my brothers at the Bishopric have already done in reference to this subject. What I have just done is authorize the priests to go to Garabandal and hold Holy Mass at the Parish, at any desired time, and to administer the Sacrament of Reconciliation to anyone that wishes to receive it. I am sure the next Bishop will promote further studies to examine in depth the Garabandal events and will send the findings to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome. I respect apparitions and have known of authentic conversions. How can we not always feel the need to open our heart to our Mother Mary to tell her that we need her protection, her help, her courage, her hope, her faith and her love when faced with these events! I encourage you to keep maintaining such devotion toward our Mother”.

      • Had a long road trip, listened to many of his interviews. On a steel on steel interview after the dates of his predictions Malachi addressed the host saying that the sign had not come etc and some other things. Available on YouTube. He adrressed it, saying what he thought may be coming was not because of no sign etc.

      • Terrye Newkirk, please cite your sources regarding Father Martin. There has been much negative written about him after he died, but not while he was alive. I am curious. If your opinion is based on hearsay, then it is calumny.

      • I take issue with what you’ve said, Terrye. He was released from his vows of obedience and poverty to write and expose what was going on. I know this first hand because I used to visit him in NY. He was not expelled from the Jesuits, he left the Jesuits. He was also an exorcist. He said daily Mass in the Old Form. He was granted “extraterritorial” privilege, meaning he was NOT required to be incardinated into a Diocese, or an Ordinariate, or to enter a religious order.

          • My guess, he’d say “Nobody is good but God,” and that he determined to be as much a servant to the truth as he could be. All I know is that a few extremely good traditionalist priests of his generation whom I know felt he was on-target.

          • Hi Julia – He had a profound effect on my life. I saw his point on the novus ordo, but I didn’t agree that it wasn’t a legitimate form of the mass.

          • Hi, fniper. I understand. And this whole topic amounts to a “hard saying.” To be wholly honest I cannot take a once-and-for-all-definitive stand on this point with the Mass, myself. On occasion I ‘must’ go to the NO, and am moved by it. I exclaim to myself “HOW, with all you know??!?!??” and yet there I am, taken in. At least when it is a full, reverent, stately and serious liturgy. So, I am wholly sure that the NO is deficient in a thousand ways, yet, wonder if at times in this horrific age we experience that by His own, true Mercy, Our Lord does determines to transcend invalidity (if/when present), knowing that if He does not, His children have nothing, and will starve. To me this thought is less an argument on legalities as once again His saving of us over and above appointed authorities who fail us. Something like “All that is gold does not glitter,” from Tolkien, He extracts out of the limitations of the NO the Pearl, and presents it to us, still and all. They say that the Japanese faithful endured eons without the Sacraments, sustained by authentic Catholic prayer. I’ve often wondered if in their spiritual Communions He did not make Himself even more physically present to their longing, than to those with the Sacrament who took it lightly. I’m not sure I explain that well, but, whatever……..Please nobody take it as anything other than a musing in prayer, I’d be loathe to start an argument on technicalities of Eucharistic theology here! And I’d never want such a hope for His transcending of limits imposed on the faithful to foster a complacent “Ok, then, all is well enough!” nor work against continued restoration efforts to end truly destructive and sacrilegious liturgy where it exists, for example.

          • Hi Julia – I absolutely understand every word you posted and agree wholeheartedly. I watched a show on EWTN once about the Lord of the Rings, and they made an excellent case for the ring being sin, it was very interesting. and made the connection that the ring was destroyed on the twenty-fifth of March, which is the Feast Day of the Annunciation, where sin was also undone. I want to watch it again some day soon, because it had too much to get everything in one viewing. Jesus I trust in You, is a good thing to pray in days such as these..

          • I am going to look this up, right now, to watch it too!!! Thank you so much, Fniper. There is a real reason they say that fiction is sometimes far more powerful than other forms in moving the heart towards the truth!! Tolkien was a prophet in my book, not to mention Orwell. I just posted a long post about an old Fatima pamphlet I just found, “up top” so to speak, I’d love your thoughts.

          • Hi Julia – Tolkien, was a great writer and how great is it that he wove Catholic Theology into his great classics. Fatima is being fulfilled right before our eyes. I too also try to find as many old pamphlets and resources that I can get my hands on. It is much easier if you get to know people 70 years and older, they have all the good stuff!

          • They sure do….and they share! 🙂 [PS — eeek. After being up for about 20 minutes my post on Fatima is now seemingly gone. There was nothing of it violating rules…..maybe a glitch. I’ll hope for it to reappear. Else-wise, 30 minutes gone with the wind. “The Lord giveth……………” 🙂 ]

          • Hi Julia – I have always found the elderly have the best stories to tell, and it is always good to listen to somebody who lived before Vatican II and color TV. Thirty minutes is a little bit longer than it takes to pray the stations of the Cross.

          • The NO meets, just barely, the absolute minimun requirements to be a valid Mass. ANY further changes will render it invalid and unacceptable. The ONLY actual True Mass is that of pope St. Pius V.

      • Malachi Martin was released as a Jesuit, and released from the vows of poverty, and obedience, but not chastity. He kept the vow of chastity his whole life. Even Fr. Vincent O’Keefe, vicar general of the Jesuits had to go on record to affirm his vow of chastity. Malachi Martin was still a priest who said private Masses and performed exorcisms. He was actually given faculties by Cardinal Cooke to function as a priest in NY for his exorcism ministry.

      • Malachi Martin said in 1993 that the 3rd secret of Fatima namely identified KIEV and Russia… That was 2 years after the collapse of Soviet Union, when Russia itself was a ghost state and Ukraine was a minor nation with no geo-political importance… He also mentioned that he BELIEVED that something would be seen in the sky “soon” (1997) but went on to say that what he was expecting would happen within 20 years at the very most (2017, as you as know, is the centennial of Fatima).

        He also said that a “pope under the control of the devil” was part of the real deal, and that and what Pope Pius XII said about “the danger of altering the faith etc.” as foretold by sister Lucia of Fatima (which, by the way, is nowhere to be found in the Vatican 6 pages long “secret”), point out in the same direction: it makes even more sense in our days and age with Bergoglio sitting in Rome. (that part would explain John XXIII’s reaction about the secret being NOT about his own pontificate).

        The Ukrainian Crisis + NATO buildup at the very doors of Russia + Bergoglio + 2017…

        So there’s no doubt in my mind that Fr. Martin did INDEED read the true content.

      • Hi Ggsu2 – Every time I listen to it I hear something new, often something which makes what is going on in the Church right now make more sense. That’s pretty amazing nearly twenty years after they were first recorded.

        • Yes, I feel the same. Everything MM said about the church is being fully reveled today. And like you, I listen to these MM tapes repeatedly and I’m always amazed at how each time I gain a better understanding of what is going on not just at the Vatican, but in our world. He was knowledgeable on so many topics…he spoke multiple languages and held multiple degrees. That man was quite brilliant…yet humble.

          He was reportably working on his last manuscript when he died….the manuscript was never found.

          Funny the Vatican should wait until after Fr.Martin passed away to release their version of the third secret…..hummmmmmmmmmm

          • Hi Ggsu2 – I watched a good documentary on Netflix on Malachi Martin called “Hostage to the Devil” , it was very good. I don’t have Netflix, but I watched it in their try us free for a month deal. It was worth it just for that documentary.

        • Hi Kevin – For all men who are in public positions there is a ledger kept, on one side of the ledger the good they have done, through word of deed, on the other side of the ledger is the bad they have done, through word or deed. From what I have witnessed the good side of the ledger, for Benedict, is far more extensive than the bad side of the ledger. His writings are profound and inspiring, his actions in the Church post Vatican II and pre Papacy were always trustworthy and sound, his Papacy was, in my opinion nothing short of holy and unwaveringly Catholic and providential. And yet on the other side of the ledger is his involvement in the release of a misleading version of the 3rd Secret, which I found his involvement totally astounding at the time, and perhaps the entry that will prove most damning – his resignation which opened the door to the Papacy of Francis. These are the entries in the public ledger, that God holds the true ledger which will be used when he faces judgment causes me to hope that there is more to the story than we know about Benedict, and that his public errors have more good behind them than we know.

          • Hi! Thank you for replying.

            Respectfully, I think the jury is still out on the Ratzinger/Dollinger story. I do not think that Dr. Hickson and 1P5 have reported inaccurately, but I am pondering a couple of things.

          • Hi Kevin – It was a pleasure to respond, it is good to ponder, but even better to reach a conclusion. Especially in the days through which we pass, where the evidence that the smoke of satan has indeed entered into the minds of those who occupy the highest levels of the Vatican.

          • Hi Kevin -That is most excellent. Could you summarize what you consider the three most helpful conclusions which have arisen out of those thoughts?

          • 1) Some become the victim of their own machinations,
            2) Be careful to verify sources,
            3) A translation of a translation of a translation is never reliable.

          • Hi Kevin – Risking stumbling into the folly of your third point, could you give me your translation of that?

          • Thank You Kevin. I find your responses quite interesting. Are you saying Benedict became the victim of his own machinations? In your investigation into the 3rd Secret, do you mind revealing which sources were discredited after completion of the verification process? Do you believe Lucia’s version of the third secret(the one shown to JohnXXII) has been modified in some way by untrustworthy translation of her original text? If so was that done purposely, on a human level at least, not to mention the possible desire to do so on the part of the demonic realm.

          • Hi! To your questions:

            1) No.
            2) I must wait until the book is published.
            3) Your question presumes the published text is different than the one that was published in 2000.

          • Hi Kevin – Thank for taking the time to answer my questions. I didn’t know that the text had been published two times, once in 2000, and some other time as well. Perhaps you meant I was assuming the text read by JohnXIII was different from that which was published in 2000? I don’t presume that, even though it would help to make sense of all this, I do presume though, that all of the secrets revealed to Lucia have not been fully revealed. That there is a controversy in this regard over the text released in 2000 was not fully consistent with the content indicated by some who read that secret is somewhat curious, As is the fact that the text released would cause the popes to delay its release, especially if Our Lady of Fatima asked for it to be released by the pope who opened Vatican II, and refused to release it pre Vatican II, and the turmoil that council has wrought upon the Church..

          • Correction: Your question presumes that the published text is different than the one read by John XXIII. That is what I was attempting to say.

            I was on the phone with someone from England when I wrote that text–a bit distracted!

          • The definitive work on Fatima has already been published: the three volume tome written by Brother Michel of the Holy Trinity (who later would become a Carthusian and until a couple of years ago was its Superior General).

            If you are you going to contradict his findings, I wish you would publish your book before he departs this mortal coil so that he has an opportunity to respond.

          • Respectfully, there is more of a chance that the O.J. Simpson jury trial verdict was right than there exists a possibility that Fr. Dollinger and Gottfried Kiniger are wrong about the Third Secret of Fatima not being fully revealed.

          • That the Vatican is hiding a text has been made clear by many. There are words spoken by the Blessed Virgin Mary that go along with the vision. The vision is a 62 line text. However many have spoken about a 25 line text in an envelope. These are the words of Mary. In her fourth memoir Sr. Lucy wrote about the Third Secret when she wrote that Our Lady said “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.” The etc. were the remaining words Our Lady spoke.

          • In 1957, when the Holy office ordered that the Third Secret be transfered to Rome, Bishop John Venancio holds the Third Secret envelope up to the light. There is an outer envelope that belonged to the bishop of Fatima, Bishop Da Silva. Inside this outer envelope, there is an inner envelope belonging to Sr. Lucy containing the secret. When held up to the light, he wrote that the secret is “about 25 lines long and is written on a single sheet of paper with 3/4 centimeter margins.”

          • That’s Venancio, not “Venango.”

            Read Frere Michel both in the original French and then the English. Once you have done these, you will see the truth.

          • Francisco one of the three seers, could not hear Our Lady. He could only see her. He saw the vision of hell and the vision of the Third Secret. When Our Lady concluded the secret with In Portugal, the dogma….etc., she told Sr. Lucy, “Do not tell this to anyone. To Francisco, yes, you may tell it.”

          • With the vision of hell, Our Lady spoke words. Same thing with the vision of the Pope who is killed by soldiers on a mountain. Our Lady spoke. Are you denying that Our Lady spoke the words “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.”?

          • I take into account the first two secrets along with the third. Our Lady of Fatima gave the visions and spoke the words of all three secrets. All of which had to be related and told to Francisco by Lucy because Francisco couldn’t hear her. Where am I wrong?

            If Our Lady spoke “In Portugal the dogma of the faith…etc.” then the Vatican is hiding something. What was released in 2000, was a text of a vision, where there are no words spoken by Our Lady. The words “In Portugal…etc.” are missing.

          • If you took the narrative as a whole, you would clearly see that the words on Francisco can well be interpreted as everything she said prior–including the first and second parts.

            In other words, her words on Francisco are not proof-positive that they refer ‘only’ to the third part of the secret.

            I encourage you to read my book when it comes out. A lot of such matters are clarified.

          • I know what you mean. That he was to be told of what was was said in the other two secrets. He didn’t have to be told about the vision of the Pope. He saw the vision of the Pope like the other two seers. You still got a problem with the words “In Portugal the dogma etc.” She spoke those words and they are missing from the secret the Vatican released.

          • Cardinal Sodano basically saying Sr. Lucy was lying. It was not the words of Our Lady. Some “annotations.” Some pious extra words Sr. Lucy added on her own will. Some pious hallucinations. Made up words and sentiments. That’s blasphemous towards Our Lady and makes Sr. Lucy a sinner. This coming from the same Sodano whose interpretation of the vision of a Pope being killed by soldiers with bullets and arrows on a mountain with bishops, priests, and laity, somehow means the assassination attempt of John Paul II by a single gunman. An attempt on the life of a Pope who survives and lives.

          • I may have to check the booklet to verify, but I thought it was Bertone who mentioned “some annotations.”

            That said, I think your characterization is very harsh and rash. It has the effect of empowering one to cast aspersion, if not judgment, on the intention of the writer which is not good for unbiased investigations.

            The fact that Sr. Lucia was indeed a sinner is not in question. What IS in question is the correct understanding of the words “some annotations.” I am not so sure they are to be read in such an emotional light.

          • You are right, could have been Bertone. I don’t remember who presented, I know it was Ratzinger and either Bertone or Sodano or both. I do remember Ratzinger stressing the interpretation of the vision was Sodano’s. Kept mentioning Sodano and the office of secretary of state.

            A sinner in this specific instance of lying and making up words the Virgin did not say. That is serious. An annotation is something added to a text. Some type of comment added to a text. The words of Our Lady are not an annotation. They are part of the original text. They are part of the secret and apparition. These words originated with Our Lady and not with Sr. Lucy. To attribute the words of Our Lady to anyone but Our Lady is blasphemous. It is a denial of her spoken word and instead attributing it to Sr. Lucy who invented them and added them to the text as her comment and annotation to the text.

          • The CDF is under the office of the Secretary of State. I went back to look at the order of events. On May 13th, 2000, after the beatification ceremony for Francisco and Jacinta, Cardinal Sodano gave a speech announcing the upcoming release of the text of Third Secret. He doesn’t read the text during this speech, but gives an interpretation of what the text means and how it is to be understood. At the press conference of June 26th, Ratzinger and Bertone release the text. They again affirm Sodano’s interpretation and call it Sodano’s interpretation, when they say the Bishop in white text depicts the assassination attempt of John Paul II.

          • Do you believe that this is all the work of Sodano’s and some evil conspiracy that put the CDF in a public-relations bind?

          • It is the work of Sodanos. Whether the CDF agreed with it or not, it doesn’t matter, because they went out there and followed the party line. There is an official party line policy with regards to Fatima from the Vatican and everybody in the Vatican has to toe the line.

  4. As has been reported the May 21, 2016 ‘Press Communique’ was put out there with no one taking responsibility for it’s report. This Vatican is about as transparent as MUD. How can anyone believe A WORD about what comes from ‘The Vatican Press Office’???

  5. Okay, so we see here, once again, weak infiltrated clergy that were made Bishops. Later, those Bishops became Pope’s that were targeted to allow the most corruption under their Papacy and ordained those that the Future would see further evil and corruption and more destruction of the Papacy…those elderly, like the good Dr. Dollinger are now on their way out to Heaven”s Gate…too little too late…

    • As a nurse and wife of a Deacon, and one who has run many Catholic conferences since 1994, I have always immersed myself in learning about the faith…especially Fatima. One can clearly discern by many credible theologians and seeing the proof evidenced on websites for many decades, it is more than speculation that the “supposed Sister Lucia” appears to have different facial structure, evidenced by comparison of
      jawlines, nasal, eye, and overall head features that in spite of many who stated that she was an imposter and mocked for saying so (re: Fr. Nicholas Gruner)…makes one speculate that this is in fact true…Please, for those wondering if we got the whole secret, as years ago, Mother Angelica, acknowleded on EWTN, “Don’t ask me how I know, but we didn’t get the whole thing”…makes one wonder whether we had the real St. Lucia!!!

      • Believe me, if the Sister Lucia who returned to Fatima five times since the 1940’s was not Lucia dos Santos, her sisters and brother would have let the whole world know. This persistent fabrication is indicative of at least collapsed cognitive function.
        The difference in the dental structure is clearly the result of an intervention before she entered Carmel. We all know the difference dentures make in the appearance of those who sport them. She had terrible teeth and needed correction since childhood. Her resemblance in her senior years to her sisters Maria dos Anjos and Carolina is startling – and quite charming.

        • Your comment “…collapsed cognitive function” is rude ,insulting, and quite un-Christian….are you an authority on Fatima?? Mother Angelica and others have doubted much of what has been presented by our Church leaders regarding Fatima et al…I guess you believe in global warming because the pope says so…

          • My good woman, I have immersed myself in the spirituality of Fatima since I was 13 years old — fifty-two years ago. It is in no small way responsible for my ability to withstand the insanity our Church has endured since the sixties.
            The message of Fatima, its theological import, its depth spirituality requires personal conversion. Hysterical theorizing is detrimental to our Lady’s outreach to us.
            Be assured, I hold the Bergoglian agenda to manifest equal cognitive dysfunction.

  6. Hi – new here. How about a picture of that priest in the photos of St. Padre Pio from the present day? I’m not an expert but they look very photo-shopped to me. Anybody else notice that?

  7. I have been trying to guess for years, what can be so terrible that they have kept the hidden second part of the Third Secret and words of the Virgin, secret for 57 years and are so terrified about it. It cannot be merely apostasy. Apostasy and a spiritual chastisement, as terrible as it is, would not scare them out of their minds. There is apostasy in the hidden portion, but there has to be something temporal. Malachi Martin in his Art Bell interviews said it was our worst nightmare. The worst we can think of. Something worse than a Pope being controlled by the devil. He said the secret would fill churches with people on their knees beating their chests. Suzanne Pearson of the Fatima Center, in a conference said that Malachi Martin told her that when he read the secret, it was Cardinal Bea, who handed him the single sheet of paper with those infamous 25 lines. Cardinal Bea told him, “We’ve just killed a billion people. Look at this!” and Martin was given the secret.

      • Worse than an apostate Pope, is a temporal punishment where the Pope is killed along with cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, laity and about 1/3 of the world’s population, if not more, closer to 3/4. The visible Church being almost wiped out along with whole countries and continents.

          • Sr. Lucy said that our times during events of Third Secret, can be found in Revelations chapter 12. Pope John Paul in 2000, I believe during the beautification of the other two seers also mentioned the Apocalypse chapter 12. This current age of apostasy and the Third Secret can actually be found in chapters 12-14. The beginning and end of the drama for this age.

      • I remember Malachi being asked about a Pope being controlled by the devil and I think he said either that was in the secret or an element of it, but he did say that was not the central part. The central part of the secret was worse than that, and more frightening.

        • For the life of me I can’t think of anything more terrifying than that short of perhaps Satan incarnate walking the earth and having human sacrifices offered to him publicly

          • I’ve heard that too and while that is certainly true on some level, I’m talking about public Satanic rituals that are obviously so (not disguised as a medical procedure) which culminate with a very public, blatantly ritualistic death

    • You are putting your finger on it. I think it may show how we transition from a global apostasy formalized by a pope “under the control of satan” (Chapter 12) to the next part involving Antichrist and the False Prophet (Chapter 13). This as Bishop Fellay pointed out is the really scary part – this is how Antichrist will be revealed to the world, which must happen after the “revolt” as St Paul calls it. Interwoven in this transition period are terrifying material and spiritual chastisements. If we all honest and look at our own souls and the condition of the world, no honest person of faith can say we do not deserve it. As Malachi Martin told a lady on the Art Bell show, it can be mitigated by prayer, penance and sacrifice, but it cannot be avoided. The choice was made from 1960 onwards at the very least, if not before.

      • The message of Akita is fire will fall from the sky killing the good and the bad and will take out the greater part of humanity. Those who are left will think they are the only ones left on earth. It doesnt get much worse than that! Fire falling from the sky would suggest a Sodom & Gomorrah scene.

        • There were several of prophesies that tell of a world wide chastisement. Even from as far back as centuries ago.
          How far that the devil will be allowed to go with the Church and the world today, we don’t know. The beginnings of sufferings will be when there is a global government and global Church. Sometimes God has let mankind get really bad before He punishes and I guess it has to get worse than now even. But we’ve been warned and have the advantage of preparation.
          Some Catholic prophesies have said that the radical Muslims will be very powerful and spread all over Europe to do harm (another chastisement?) but will be defeated. Others that after the 3 days of darkness when the world is being punished and evil ones destroyed,that there will be a renewal of the Church and of all the people who survive will turn to God. But in a short time later, people will turn from God again and the anti-Christ will come.

    • Ratzinger was known as someone who liked to talk. He was always talking to people. His nickname was Cardinal Orange. He loves orange soda, which he drank regularly in meals. In Rome and Italy, there is always a meal going on. It is normal for cardinals, bishops, and priests to regularly dine in cafes and restaurants. They are always chatting about day and night at these places. Apparently Ratzinger told a lot of people about the Third Secret.

  8. Why is anyone surprised at the dishonesty coming out of the Vatican?
    They arragonately think that they can dismiss Our Blessed Mother’s wishes. They are in for a surprise.

    Pray the rosary like our Mother has asked us and just watch Her crush Satans head.
    We know how the book ends?

  9. And here I thought this “story” was put to rest with Cardinal Ratzinger’s firm denial. It seems to have reappeared from a man who is obviously soon to meet God. Either he is telling the truth or is courting a very long stay in purgatory or worse. Where there is smoke there is fire.

    • It is quite possible that the denial of Pope Benedict XVI was “Vatican-speak.” It could easily have been provided without him knowing anything about it, or without even having been consulted.

  10. I believe you when you say that Dr. Ingo Dollinger, is a saintly priest, so please believe me when I say that Pope Benedict XVI is also a saintly priest. I do believe that it’s possible that neither man is lying, that possibly the release from the Vatican may have been in error, a misunderstanding – any number of possibilities must be allowed before subtly accusing either of them of lying. I see someone below wrote that Malachi Martin claims to have read the secret in ~1960-61 and it was on a single sheet of paper, I also heard him say this in different interviews. Quite possibly the original had been destroyed (as some do believe) before it ever was handed on to JPII. The 4 pages that the Vatican revealed may not have been authentic at all. I think we are going to find out soon enough the hard way what was written, so whether or not it matters at this point in time is another discussion altogether.

  11. We all know that Providence puts things in our way all day long, so, when I came on a very old pamphlet on Fatima in church one day, I took it home. From the Blue Army. Old-old. “Has the Crusade of Fatima Failed?” is the name. Bottom line, if “failure” has occurred it is due to not pressing the details of what are the consequences of not complying with Our Lady’s Message. Specifically, as per this quote, the exact errors of Communism are not sufficiently understood by people to elicit the horror and terror needed to press the Hierarchy for action towards the Consecration.

    ‘Does this mean, in your opinion, that every country, without exception, will be overcome by Communism?’


    —- Answer of Sr. Lucia to a question posed by Professor William Thomas Walsh, as noted in his book on Our Lady of Fatima 4th printing, (1947) p. 226

    The pamphlet notes the writings of ex-Communists such as Kenneth Goff and Joseph Zack for specifics, which center on a specific day having been targeted, and on which day, at a signal, those seeded through the society will rise up, with the U.S. being the center of the uprising’s origin.

    YOU TELL ME if this does not sound almost to the letter like the orchestrated and paid-for mayhem afoot in the streets since the election of our President, combined with legitimate fears of our infrastructure, media, etc. being ultra-vulnerable to attack? Not to mention increasing fears that ISiS has aligned with the tactics of the left? Natural enemies in some ways, but then, “the enemy of my enemy……”

    The insurgency, chaos, sedition, wholesale lack of civility, riots, attacks on conservative free-speech at campuses, the “women’s” marches, etc., etc., etc. unleashed from hell over the past couple of months seem a bit like prelude, when compared to what is written in this pamphlet:

    From Goff, written in the late ’40s, a prediction based on his time inside the Party:

    (Start Quote)

    “At that hour, two large riots are supposed to take place in every city of any size. Leaders of these mobs are to be carefully chosen and trained in advance. The disturbances are to be of such extent as to require sending large forces of police to those areas. While the authorities are trying to quell these riots, picked bands of Reds are to seize radio and telephone exchanges. With the aids of comrades employed inside, all communications systems are to be instantly crippled.

    “Flying squads of Communists are to seize control of the water supply and shut it off; also the electrical power grid and gas. This means that no elevators or street cars or trains are to be running. Homes would be without water, fuel or light. It would be impossible to communicate with friends or loved ones, even in another part of the same city.

    “Goon squads of professional murderers are to round up the people in business districts. Men are to be held as hostages in some of the larger buildings. Women are to be turned over to the sex-crazed mobs to be ravished and raped.

    “These are the exact methods used in Russia, Spain and other places where the Communist Party has been allowed to organize and come to fruition. They firmly expect to do the same thing in the United States.

    ” Bridges, subways and street car stations are to be blown up. Downtown areas are to be isolated from the rest of the city. Sharpshooters and snipers are to be detailed in taxicabs and other vehicles, which are to be taken over, to wipe out the police, soldiers, uniformed persons and known vigilantes. Smoke bombs properly located in subways, buildings and large stores are to add to the terror of the people.

    ” This is the day…..the big day towards which every Communist in America is looking….and for which he is preparing. His entire training focuses on that point.

    “When night comes, the city is to be in pitch darkness. Murderous bands will roam the streets, plundering shops and starting fires in old buildings. This will increase panic and facilitate the surrender of women, children and old people, who will be held hostage to hasten the surrender of unarmed men.

    “Then as the morning sun casts her first rays on the community, one will be able to see the blood flowing in the streets. This is no idle dream. The Communist Party is working methodically and with deadly precision towards this objective.”

    (End Quote)

    Hmm. Now that false stories about Trump’s collusions with Russia are starting to die off, and the Deep State is more exposed, and we recall REAL collusions with Russia such as Hilary’s huge sale of uranium to them as Secretary of State (among a litany of others that also include O.), I’m beginning to think that special-effects kinds of chastisement as a result of the Apostasy, as riveting as they are, may be distracting us from the possibility of plain vanilla tactics of hoards of zombie-like communist/leftist thugs overflowing our streets and taking lives en masse, one-by-horrible-one. That so, so, so many persons and pundits right now dismiss the current upheavals as “just political free speech” —- and equally ignore the “small” and sometimes only so far local legislative, school-board and other indicators of destruction of a civil and moral life (CT has a bill coming up next week that will forbid parents to have their children counseled against same-sex/transgender tendencies, for example) means they do not realize the original intent of the players. This naive (or stupid) blindness can well be used by Evil to undo us.

    Our Lady of Fatima, Pray for Us, and that the Consecration may be done just as You have asked.

    • communism is defined today as atheistic materialism and yes this is exactly what the USA suffers from, Sr. Lucia was right as rain.

  12. If the third secret is the great apostasy, then it is a secret no longer. We are in it wether the Vatican chooses to acknowledge it or not. The world is falling away from the faith.

  13. Oh, I guess Ratzinger, St John Paul & Sr Lucia are all liars after all. How naive of me to not have realized that earlier.

    • (1) The suggestion has been made that the then C. Ratzinger was forced to lie.

      (2) Sr. Lucia may have been forced to sign a document (or did not fully understand what she was signing). If memory serves, didn’t C. Bertoni make a suspicious whirlwind visit to her monastery at one point?

      (3) I suppose if there weren’t pictures of John Paul kissing the Koran, you would have denied even the possibility.

    • By the way, all you need to do is read “The Ratzinger Report” to find out what C. Ratzinger said THEN was in the Third Secret was NOT in the document that was portaryed as the complete Third Secret.

      • In his book, “Transformation in Christ” Dietrich Von Hildebrand cautions against abandoning oneself to impulses,even healthy ones, a fortiori imbibing and regurgitating conspiracy theories fueled by one’s own personal dispositions. If, (and I say “if,” I attempt to make no judgment) your prayer and sacramental life (viz. Confession) is in need of some attention you’d experience greater clarity of vision if they were as they could (should?) be. Joseph Ratzinger, Sr. Lucia and St. John Paul were not perfect (yes, I saw the Koran picture as well as other incriminating photographs of St John Paul), but, at least purportedly their prayer and sacramental lives were (“are” in the case of Ratzinger) quite serviceable. You may be a living saint and a genius, but lacking evidence thereof (again, I’m not claiming that’s not the case) I’m more inclined to trust the competency, integrity & credibility of the aforementioned three.

        • Stop talking around the point. You claim that there is no issue with Ratzinger’s contradictions vis-a-vis “The Ratzinger Report” and what he later said about the complete nature of the Third Secret revelation. All I ask is that you explain the dichotomy.

          Instead you bring up problems with my spiritual life — about which you know nothing. And this because I disagree with and reply to your snarky remarks? And offer evidence?

          NEVER bring ANYONE’S spiritual life into a discussion of this kind. You make the inference of defect then deny any implication of such. Great tactic — but knock it off. It has NO place in this discussion. And I find it despicable.

          I’d like some support from the Moderators here.

    • I would never claim Cardinal Ratzinger to be a liar, as I also wrote in my Letter to him which we later published ( As mentioned by others here, Cardinal Ratzinger might have believed that missing part not to be part of the Third Secret, but, rather, an addition made by Sister Lucia herself. A speculation I would not share but which has been widely spread by others, for example Father Dhanis. I don’t think your irony is helpful here since we are seeking the truth, nothing but the truth.

  14. I don’t wish to offend, but has it occurred to anyone that this bad council and Mass and apostasy may be a future event? As has been stated on various sites there are rumors of a major announcement from Rome coming soon. Francis is making moves to accommodate the Lutherans and reopen discussions on Mass translations. Could a change in the words of consecration be in the offing to satisfy doctrinal differences and, in typical Francis style, be open to various interpretations?

    • Unable to be more precise, but earlier this week there was a report about the composition of a new “Eucharistic prayer” that could be employed in an ecumenical setting — I presume something of the nature of a concelebrated ecumenical Eucharist. I believe this enterprise is being undertaken in Rome, maybe Germany.
      This is where we are. It defies belief but for that moment in January 2015 when Cardinal
      Maradiaga clearly illuminated the profile of the Bergoglian pontificate with, “The Pope wants to take this Church renovation to the point where it becomes irreversible.”

      • I hear what you are saying – but the “bad council” and “bad mass” makes more sense being applied to Vatican II and the NO, simply because Sister Lucy said that the date of 1960 for the release of the was beacuse it would be become clearer then. How does a prophecy become clearer at a point in time? It is beginning to be fulfilled. The further deformations of the Mass that you are referring to would make more sense under the other part of the still hidden portion of the secret. Namely that of a “pope” “under the control of satan”. This part explains how Rome would “lose the faith and become the sest of the Antichrist”. The 3rd Secret gives the detail on the apostasy that La Salette mentions in a general sense. Pay attention to Chapters 12 and 13 of the Apocalypse – we are in that portion right now. Our Lady of Fatima pray for us.

    • It hasn’t occurred to me because it doesn’t make sense. Do you really think we’d be here today if Vatican II had not occurred and the Novus Ordo Missae had not been promulgated? THEY were the catalysts and the instruments for the past 50 years of the Church’s demolition.

    • U definitely have a point here. In fact if the change in the words of Consecration occur which will make the Transubstantiation impossible, then the Abomination of Desolation which Prophet Daniel spoke about which would happen when the Antichrist is revealed would have occurred and then folks we would be in the end times. I believe the Abomination of Desolation will not be the stopping of the daily sacrifices in a newly rebuilt Jerusalem Temple but the Daily Sacrifice at the Mass being stopped. After all Daniel mentioned Daily Sacrifice in the singular, so how could it refer to the daily animal sacrifices in the Jerusalem Temple which would be many. The one Sacrifice is the Sacrifice of Christ in an unbloody manner at the Eucharistic table

    • Any change in the liturgy of the consecration will make it useless. Christ will not be present transubstantially in the bread and wine because it will not be consecrated. That will be an abomination of desolation.

  15. The Church has butchered Our Lady’s requests at Fatima from the outset. It is the principle reason for our present crisis. Our Lady asked that the third secret be released in 1960. But did we do that? Nooooooo…….we knew much better than she did. Instead, Pope John XXIII reportedly said that “this does not concern our time” and he gave us a crap council which started shortly after 1960 and turned the Church upside down. Like Moses’ lack of faith in the desert, this failure to carry out Our Lady’s request has cost us dearly.

    At La Salette, Our Lady said that Rome would lose the faith and become the seat of the antichrist and that is happening before our eyes, right now. The Church likewise, poured cold water on these words of Our Lady just as it hushed up the third secret of Fatima. The present train-wreck of a papacy is the Church’s chastisement for this faithless, disobedient behavior.

    The third secret of Fatima refers to apostasy in the Church and it is happening right now.

    As for the present report, somebody here is a barefaced, shameless, faithless liar who does not believe that God sees all that we do and say. I’ve had it with Benedict. He threw in the towel on the papacy and gave us this Argentinian heretic. A pox on the lot of them.

  16. This report regretfully cannot be confirmed — it remains in limbo. However, it is not beyond credible. The thinking of responsible members of the episcopate is often governed by a sense of greatest prudence and discretion. That drive would allow them to see the withholding of a portion of the secret as merely “mental reservation.”
    Its fifty fifty in my mind. I do find it peculiar that anyone would contrive such a story, let alone a man such as Fr. Dollinger. And I don’t doubt for a moment that Pope Benedict exercises his utterances with the greatest caution.
    He is an enigma.
    It could be that if something is being withheld they do not wish to undermine Fatima if a dimension of the secret would not be realized.
    That said, we need to continue to pray the Rosary, and to pray for the welfare of the Church in this era of grievous and profound disorientation.

  17. that John Paul II wanted it and ordered it this way

    So, the so-called Fatima Pope–the Great ordered it. I wonder. Do saints lie like this?

    • The Blessed Virgin wanted the Secret published in 1960. I understand that to mean that whatever it said, the implementers of whatever was happening, were not yet in place OR there were still enough orthodox Prelates to be a counterforce. We are not totally reliant on Fatima to understand our situation. We have Sor Mariana de Jesus from the 17th century. We have La Salette from the 19th. Padre Pio said the Rosary is the weapon.

    • PF wanted to canonize all the V2 popes, which is not usual and they didn’t have the necessary miracles to prove their place in Heaven and their holiness. I for one liked JPll but would have hesitated in the fast canonization.

  18. What difference does any of this make other than this is more evidence that the Church appears to be behaving badly? There are no new truths here.

  19. If we say that Fr Dollinger’s remarks are true then we are in effect saying that Cardinal Ratzinger lied in his remarks in 2016. If an Emeritus Pope can lie in public about such an important event as the third secret of Fatima, then why can’t we take it that he lied about the reason of his resignation from his papacy and he was actually forced to resign by the powers that be in the Vatican. In both cases probably he was put in a situation where he had to lie because his very life may be at stake if he said anything different than what he said. I am not justifying that a person should lie in public, but I am just saying that situations may be such that he had no option but to lie.

  20. The people who have dug deep into the 3rd Secret’s saga know since long that it wasn’t fully disclosed in 2000 and that here is no need to reveal the hidden part since what is written in it currently is unscrolling under our scared eyes.
    “In the Third Secret, it is foretold among other things that the great apostasy (in the Church) will begin AT THE TOP”. (Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian of five popes. beginning by Pius XII)
    Thus, the obfuscation of the main part of the Third Secret by John XXIII and his successors until now was aimed at allowing the plot of the modernist sect to succeed in subverting the Church and change Her up to the point that no way back would be possible.

    • That part of the Secret has been circulating for a while, and what a situation with Catholic Faith tied to the Papacy as the symbol of unity, as the source of protection for the Apostolic Faith – what a diabolical situation, and only God can save us. We still have the mysterious part of the Secrets of Fatima including the Pope to be shot with bullets and arrows – that has yet to happen.

  21. We Know through the Cardinal Ratzinger’s own words to Mr Howard Dee that the Akita’s and Fatima’s messages are “essentially the same”.
    Akita’s apparitions were approved by the Church.
    Thus it his highly pkausible that Akita suggests the hidden part of Fatima:
    “As I told you, if men do not repent and better themselves, the Father will inflict a terrible punishment on all humanity. It will be 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 that will remain for you will be the Rosary and 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 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 conferees…churches and altars sacked, the Church will be full of those who accept compromise and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord. The demon will be especially implacable against 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 be no longer pardon for them.”

  22. So after publicly telling the entire world one thing, Cardinal Ratzinger would then go and carelessly admit the the truth in a sacristy in the presence of several other priests? Sorry, I don’t buy it.

  23. At Fatima our Lady appeared as the Woman Clothed with the Sun, the Lady of the Apocalypse, who had the moon beneath her feet. In scriptural context this lady relates to that time when a portion of the “stars” (bishops) in the sky (heaven) will “fall” (loose their powers of office) including power to validly ordain priests. Scripture and prophecy predict at this time valid masses and the Continual Sacrifice would become rare.

    “Who is worthy to offer the Sacrifice of the Lamb?” becomes an important question. Since “worthiness” of a residing prelate is usually not a state needed to validate a consecration, one must wonder why this question is asked in the Book of Daniel.

    I think we make a mistake therefore, if we assume that heresy or a poorly revised rite, would invalidate bishops, as formal heresy is pretty hard to commit. Even if one is a hardened sinner, and even if one is a heretical priest, one is still a priest or a bishop. No, the only thing that has automatically excommunicated (with loss of office) by act since the Didache, is child abuse or incestual relations by a prelate, or any connection or support of such activities.

    My God the visible hierarchy is filled with shuffled pederasts.

    Think about it folks. Every pope prior to Benedict said “Not in my pontificate” after reading the Third Secret. Benedict, two weeks in, said “the Vatican is infected with homosexuals” and shortly thereafter resigned, as if HE was not going to deny the problems with the church were something that only God could undo. Brute homosexual pederasty, i.e. sadism (loss of empathy/humanity) is the religion of the anti Christ.

  24. Look at Bishop Williamson’s “Fatima II” issue. There you can read what we are not being told. I can see why Wojtyla would want that suppressed.


Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...