Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Interview with Dr. Michael Hesemann, Fatima Expert

Image: Dr. Michael Hesemann with Pope Benedict XVI. Image courtesy of the official website of Dr. Hesemann.

After our recent collaboration on the publication of an important 1918 document from the Secret Vatican Archives which reveals Freemasonic plans to destroy monarchies and the Catholic Church, Dr. Michael Hesemann and I had a prolonged conversation via e-mail in which we politely discussed some of our agreements and disagreements with regard to the Third Secret of Fatima and the message of Fatima in general. Dr. Hesemann himself has written altogether three books on Fatima and has done serious historical research in this field. His first book was published before the year 2000 – that is to say, before the official publication of the Third Secret of Fatima. In that 1997 book, Dr. Hesemann tried to put together a rough sketch of what the Third Secret could possibly speak about. The second book responded to the 2000 publication of the Third Secret, and the third book is an update concerning the developments and new findings since 2000 and in light of the centenary of the 1917 Fatima apparitions. With Dr. Hesemann’s permission, OnePeterFive publishes in the form of an interview some of the questions and answers of our prolonged conversation which might be worthwhile to present to our readers because Dr. Hesemann has some pertinent insights with regard to both our current world situation as well as with regard to the Fatima discussion.


Maike Hickson: You have recently stated in another interview – and on occasion of the publication of your new book, Das Letzte Geheimnis von Fatima (2016) (The Last Secret of Fatima) – that the Third Secret of Fatima might very well point to the future and not, as the Vatican presented it in 2000, to the past. You argue here with reference to the 2010 statement of Pope Benedict XVI himself and also to Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone who corrected his own statement in his Fatima book after that same 2010 papal statement which said that the message of Fatima might well point to the future, after all. Where you do yourself see a possible danger in the future?

Michael Hesemann: The danger I see for the future, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and the promised conversion of Russia, is a chastisement to which only the name “Fatima” refers: it comes through Islam. Our Lady invited us obviously to pray for the conversion of the Muslims now, to follow the example of the historical princess Fatima. The scenario of the Third Secret might refer to the ongoing persecution of Christians in the Islamic world, maybe even a terror attack on Rome, with the Pope as its main victim. Our Lady obviously sees all of Europe in danger, since she stressed that only in Portugal, “the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”

Hickson: What do you think are the errors of Russia that Our Lady of Fatima spoke of? And how will Portugal always preserve the doctrine of the Faith?

Hesemann: The errors of Russia – better translated: the erroneous teachings of Russia – were of course  atheistic Communism. That becomes clear out of the context that this revelation [and message of Fatima] took place in the year of the October Revolution [1917]. The apparitions in Fatima practically started at the same time when Lenin entered St. Petersburg, and they ended only a few days before the outbreak of the October Revolution. Portugal, which was nearly completely dominated by Freemasons in 1917, recovered and returned to the Catholic Faith. It was spared from the Spanish Civil War just the same as the Second World War. I think it will also be spared from Islamification.

Hickson: Do you not think that parts of that atheistic Communism which excludes any reference to God and His moral laws – for example about marriage and life – are still with us today?

Hesemann: Our Lady of Fatima promised the conversion of Russia, which indeed took place. But unfortunately Communism still exists in North Korea and China as well as in the dominating ideology of the West. The sad truth is that, although Russia converted, although we became witnesses of the greatest miracle in history, the West lost its faith. Now we have to pray for the conversion of Western Europe and the U.S.!

Hickson: In the context of the recent publication of the 1918 letter addressed to Archbishop Pacelli which talks about the Freemasonic plan to destroy Christianity, do you think this plan still exists, and do you see a connection to the current Islamic threat?

Hesemann: Of course the Freemasons use Islam today just as they made use of Bolshevism in 1917. The mass immigration in Europe is, after all, clearly politically steered – among others by the high-grade Freemason George Soros and his political puppets. What they were not able to achieve with Communism, shall now be implemented with the help of Islam!

Hickson: To come back to the Third Secret of Fatima. Is it true that Church historians still do not have access to the Vatican documents and files concerning the Third Secret of Fatima, even after the year 2000?

Hesemann: The Third Secret of Fatima was sent to Rome in 1957, during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XII. The Archives are only open by now up to the end of the Pontificate of Pius XI, until 1939. We expect that the “Section Pius XII” in the Vatican Archives will open soon, but it is still not certain if they start with the years of World War II, with the second half of his Pontificate following later, or if it takes longer until all documents up to1958 become available for historical research. There are no exemptions, so the Fatima documents are just treated like all the others, too.

Hickson: Do you believe that the Third Secret of Fatima has been fully published?

Hesemann: The Third Secret has been completely published, that’s for sure. But keep in mind that Sister Lucia wrote several letters to the Popes – to Pius XII, Paul VI and John Paul II, and of course there might be one or the other reference to, or even her explanation, of the Third Secret among them. That is very well possible. The Third Secret has been completely published, but of course not the letters of Sister Lucia to the popes. Maybe we will find them in the Positio, among the 12,000 pages sent to the Vatican for examination in her beatification process, or we have to wait until the files from the Pontificate of John Paul II are available for historical research, which indeed will take some time. Regarding the Third Secret, I myself have requested a professional examination of its handwriting when it was published in 2000, and the expert, a German forensic graphologist, concluded that it was indeed Sister Lucia’s handwriting. However, that particular document was written under a certain degree of tension, not in her usual day-to-day handwriting, which indicates that she took it extremely seriously and was highly concentrated when she wrote it down. This was later confirmed by her own spiritual diary, when she noted that she wrote it down on her knees!

Hickson: According to a new book written about Sister Lucia by the Sisters of Coimbra (A Pathway Under the Gaze of Mary: Biography of Sister Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart, 2015), it seems that Sister Lucia was ordered by the Blessed Mother to first only write down the vision of the Third Secret, but not yet the explanation. Patrick Archbold reported in 2014 about this new revelation which is based on selective quotes from Sister Lucia, as follows: “It is ‘the Mother of Heaven’ who says to her [Lucia]: ‘be at peace and write what they order you, but not what has been given you to understand its meaning’ intending to allude to the meaning of the vision that the Virgin herself had revealed to her.” [emphasis added]  What is the reason why the Vatican authorities have not yet published the explanation of the Third Secret, written by Sister Lucia, as they have done it with the First and Second Secret of Fatima (each containing a vision and an explanation of its meaning)?

Hesemann: Well, first of all we don’t know if she ever wrote down what she learned about its meaning and whether she sent it to the Vatican. But, even if she did so, it is well possible that Sister Lucia’s interpretation of the Third Secret is problematic or could cause some sensationalism. We know that she was sure there would have been a nuclear war in 1985 which was only prevented by the consecration of Russia and the World to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady on 25 March 1984. We all most probably agree on the fact that the official interpretation of the Third Secret as published in the year 2000 is a rather optimistic one. Of course the Church hesitates to publish alarming messages to avoid any sensationalism. And it certainly does not like to publish frightening apocalyptic messages. Take for example the original transcripts of the Great Secret of La Salette, which were, after all, sent to the Vatican already in 1851. They were only re-discovered accidentally in the archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – and that in the year 1999!

Hickson: What would you say was the alarming part of the message of La Salette?

Hesemann: A persecution of the Church and the Holy Father, the destruction of Paris and Marseilles, the birth of the antichrist and “hell on Earth.” Should we take it seriously? Well, it also announces the election of a pope “nobody expected” and that “they will try to kill him but do not succeed, since the vicar of God will this time be triumphant” which sounds very much like the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981. It also mentions that “a great country in the North of France … will convert; with the support of this country all nations of the world will convert.” Let’s hope that this refers to the conversion of Russia and its role in the future.

Hickson: You published the new book on Fatima in 2016 and were not able then to include the information that is to be found in the new 2015 biography of Sister Lucia written by the Coimbra Sisters. What would you say is the pertinent new information that comes to us from that new biography? What would you now add to your new book if you could?

Hesemann: Certainly the fascinating information we find in Sr. Lucia’s spiritual diary on the circumstances of her attempt to write down the Third Secret. For days she prayed in the chapel of her monastery in front of the Tabernacle for a sign from Our Lady to let her know if it is the will of God that she follows the order of her bishop. Eventually, on January 3rd, 1944, she “felt a friendly, affectionate and motherly hand” touch her in the shoulder. She looked up and “saw the beloved Mother from Heaven” who ordered her to write it down, “seal it and write on the outside that this can be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria.” In this moment she received another vision, a vision which places the Third Secret even clearer into the context of a third world war: “The tip of the spear as a flame unlatches and touches the axis of the earth. It shudders. Mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers, and the clouds emerge from their limit, overflowing and bringing with them in a whirlwind houses and people in numbers that are not possible to count. It is the purification of the world because of sin as it plunges. Hatred and ambition cause the destructive war.” This horrible vision was interrupted by the gentle voice of Mary: “In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!”…

Hickson: In your first Fatima book – written in 1997, before the official publication of the Third Secret of Fatima in 2000 – you tried to predict the Third Secret’s message and content. What was your prediction, and did you also mention the speech which Pope John Paul II gave in Fulda in 1980 concerning the content of the Third Secret?

Hesemann: Of course I mentioned Pope John Paul II’s alleged statement in Fulda which could be explained as a reference to the 1978 article published in the Osservatore Romano right before the Conclave when he was elected as Pope. This article was written by Msgr. Corrado Balducci and quoted an apocryphical version of the Third Secret, published by the Swiss journalist Louis Emrich in 1963. On the other hand, the alleged statement of the Pope speaks of the Third Secret as of  “a message in which it is written that the oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish,” which reminds us of Sister Lucia’s vision on 3 January 1944 which I just quoted. We will never know if this is a coincidence or what John Paul II might have already learned. We know that he read the Third Secret only after the assassination attempt, but we can’t exclude the possibility that Sr. Lucia wrote him before.

In 1997, I came to the conclusion in my book that the Third Secret consists of two parts: one part which warns against a third world war, and another part which deals with the crisis of the Church in our present time.

Maybe Sister Lucia saw it the same way. Maybe for her, the soldiers which appeared behind the Cross and shot bullets and arrows on the Holy Father and the bishops and faithful were not assassins but spiritual attacks; keep in mind that arrows are a rather old-fashioned weapon not used by terrorists or foreign armies, but an old symbol for spiritual attacks. Maybe there was in her explanation something like: “all this happened because the Faith and the prayers have gotten too weak.” Perhaps that is also what Pope Benedict XVI referred to when he spoke during the flight to Fatima in 2010 about the “attacks against the pope and the Church” which “do not come only from the outside, but … especially from within, from sin which exists in the Church.” Who knows, maybe he even quoted here one of the commentaries of Sister Lucia? We can only speculate.

Hickson: That means that you have not been able to find much out about what Sister Lucia herself wrote in her interpretation of the vision? And, what was the basis for your speculation in 1997 that the Third Secret would speak about a crisis in the Church? Is this aspect to be found in the Third Secret as it has been published in 2000? And do we know more specifics about this crisis of Faith?

Hesemann: In my book of 1997, I quoted all available statements by Cardinals about the (possible) content of the Third Secret, and of course the crisis of the Church came up several times. This was caused by the last sentence of the Second part of the Secret: “In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc.” It was speculated that this indicated a loss of faith in other parts of Europe. And yes, this is what we experience today. Everything we read in the Third Secret, the destruction of whole cities and the persecution of Christians, the suffering of the Pope who represents the Church itself, warns us of the consequences of our sins.

Hickson: As a concluding question. Do you as a Fatima expert wish that Rome would release Sister Lucia’s own diary as well as her explanation of the Third Secret of Fatima as she sent it to the pope?

Hesemann: Of course I would love to get the last pieces of the mosaic which is nothing less than God’s most powerful intervention into human history since the times of Christ and the Apostles. Certainly it will all be part of the Positio [summary of the documentation of the cause] of her beatification process, so we have the chance, at least, to learn it all in our lifetimes, given that we live long enough…

This post has been updated.

256 thoughts on “Interview with Dr. Michael Hesemann, Fatima Expert”

  1. “Our Lady of Fatima promised the conversion of Russia, which indeed took place.”

    With all due respect to all historians, book writers and investigators like Dr. Hesemann claims like this puzzle me to the core. If the consecration has been valid where is that promised peace??

    “The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”

    Furthermore, if Russia converted should we become Orthodox, because last time I checked that is a schismatic rite outside of communion with Rome?

    Yes, Heavens have certainly been happy with the semi-consecrations to some degree, hence fall of communism. But if pope and bishops are to do it right, our last hope today to defend traditional values indeed comes from Russia, so we have to pray and fast for the proper consecration which will lead to Triumph of Immaculate Heart and period of (real) PEACE.

    “The Third Secret has been completely published”

    Maybe, but remember that cardinal Ottaviani explicitly stated there was an envelope that contained around 25 lines.

    “But, even if she did so, it is well possible that Sister Lucia’s interpretation of the Third Secret is problematic or could cause some sensationalism. We know that she was sure there would have been a nuclear war in 1985..”

    Great, one of the most prudential words of modern times came from sister Lucia’s letters to her bishop, and now she seems like an unstable person that doesn’t interpret well anymore.

    Could this have something to do with it? http://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/HTimages_g-k/G012_A03_Smiling_2photos.jpg

    Was it possible that the real sister Lucia has been taken out of picture so the “new one” has can be happy with consecration, Novos Ordo and all the jolly stuff even though peace and conversion haven’t happened?

    “will convert; with the support of this country all nations of the world will convert.” Let’s hope that this refers to the conversion of Russia and its role in the future.”

    I am confused now. According to Dr. Hesemann has Russia converted or no?

    “The tip of the spear and the axis of the earth”. How can we be for certain this is something Lucia wrote? It is a claim by Carmelite nuns from the monastery. Is there a reference to this?

    “oceans will flood whole areas of the earth, and that from one moment to the next millions of people will perish”

    Heresy, Genesis 9:11 contradict this claim.

    Thank you OnePeterFive for raising such important questions!

    Spend hour and a half watching this with your family, you won’t regret it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEAXKn44jrI&t=1s

    Reply
    • There’s another mystery to be solved.

      According to the Moniales Defunctae of the Order of Discalced Carmelites in Rome, N.9, entry #265:

      Maria Lucia do Coracao Imaculado
      (dos Santos Lucia de Jesus Rosa)
      born 22/3/1907 Fatima, Portugal
      professed 3/10/1928
      died on 31/05/1949
      (Note how dates are written in Europe: date/month/year.)

      http://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/WebSources/E_049_LucyDeath-1.png

      I found the Moniales site in 1995 but failed to bookmark it. That was long before I knew there was a Tradition in Action website that would link to it. When I saw it again recently, it I could only copy and paste the url through TIA. Nevertheless, one wonders if all that information about Sister Lucy is true.

      Did Sister Lucy die on May 31, 1949? (Feast of the Queenship of Mary in the old liturgical calendar.) If so, who was the Lucy that was interviewed by Fr. Fuentes in – was it 1958? And who was the Lucy that died in 2005?

      Reply
      • Very interesting comment !
        In never believed there were two Sr Lucia until now.
        If the document you have brought up is true it would be interesting to find the tomb of this Sr Lucia. I don’t know if the carmelite sisters are buried individually or in the anonimity.

        Reply
    • As you can read in her biography “A Pathway Under the Gaze of Mary”, page 300, Lucai contracted a severe flu in the winter of 1947/8 and “began to have strong toothaches. When her temperature came down she went to the dentist. The diagnosis of Dr. Alcino Magalhaes was severe: he had to remove all her teeth and put in false teeth. The doctor offered to do all the treatment for free.” This took several month and was only completed after she already entered the Carmel in Coimbra, where the dentist (who revered her a lot) even travelled to finish his work. That’s the reason why her teeth look so different on pictures before 1947, compared with pictures taken after 1948. May 31, 1949 was the date of Sr.Lucias Solemn Profession and the Taking of the Veil in the Carmel of Coimbra, presided by Archbishop Ernesto Sena de Oliveira. The mistake in the Moniales Defunctae was obviously caused by the fact that it was her second profession, since she already professed as a Dorotheen Sister in 1928. The two dates obviously caused the mistake which was later corrected.

      Reply
      • Thank you Dr. Hesemann for clarifying that. However, I do believe that good portion of faithful shares the same doubts that Russia has not been consecrated as requested, because there is simply no evidence to suggest otherwise. No recorded consecration with specific mention of Russia, no peace, no triumph of Immaculate Heart of Mary and no conversion of Russia to the Catholic faith. We just have a typed confirmation of valid consecration after years of denying it that is attributed to sister Lucia. Dr. Sungenis brings up the following:” “Sister Lucia has never stated, privately or publicly, that she composed the statement, let alone sign it. She has never been known to type a letter, since all her correspondence thus far has been from her own handwriting.”

        His Eminency Cardinal Burke just this morning (May 19th, 2017) at the Rome Life Forum confirmed these doubts by requesting that the Russia be consecrated.

        Dr. Sungenis suggests:

        -March 19, 1983 Sister Lucia told Archbishop Sante Portulapi that the consecration had not been done: 1) No mention of Russia 2) No solemn proclamation of bishops

        -March 22, 1984 friend Eugenia asked her: “Lucia, Sunday is the Consecration?” referring to the March 25 date. Having already read the text of the Pope’s speech, Sister Lucia answered: “That consecration cannot have a decisive character because Russia does not appear in it as the sole object of consecration.” (Fatima, Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 172-173)

        -1986, Maria do Fetal, cousin to Sister Lucia, publicly quotes Sister Lucia as saying that the consecration of Russia has not been performed, but changes her mind in 1989.

        And as Dr. Sungenis concludes: “And certainly, an admission by Sister Lucia that the March 25, 1984 consecration satisfied Our Lady’s request would completely contradict every statement she has made on the requirements for the consecration over the previous sixty years, including her five denials of 1983, 1984, 1985, 1987, and 1989, respectively.”

        Reply
        • Dr. Sungenis is certainly wrong. First of all, do you remember what Russia was in 1984? It was an atheist, communist dictatorship. Atheism was the state doctrine, the church was suppressed. Have you been to Russia lately? Its new state doctrine is orthodox Christianity. Since 1990, 29.000 new Churches were opened, what is an average of 3 a day. Have you ever heard anything comparavle in the whole history of mankind? I was in Russia last October, walked to the Red Square and heard orthodox Chants. I learnt that the liturgies and prayers in the Cathedral of Our Lady of Kazan, right at the Red Square, are transmitted by loudspeakers on the whole square. You can hear it even at the Mausoleum of Lenin, who certainly rotates in his tomb, experiencing a kind of exorcism. That’s Russia today! President Putin wants to open a monastery within the Kremlin, so that the political processes are positively influenced by the monk’s prayer. He just erected a gigantic statue of Grandduke Vladimir who ordered the christianization of Russia in 988 AD, just in front of the Kremlin. Russia certainly converted. The seminaries and monasteries are overcrowded due to the many young man following their vocation. The Churches are full. The Russians are thirsty for their faith. And they block all influence of the Western decadence and made “homosexual propaganda” as well as any other form of immoral influence on their young generation a crime. At the same time they are defending Christians in the Middle East, just ask their bishops. Aleppo, which was consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Our Lady on May 13th with a big public procession, was only liberated by Russian and Syrian Armed Forces from the hands of Islamist terrorists, some of them even supported by the Obama administration.

          So Dr. Sungenis claims that Sr. Lucia “has never been known to type a letter”. This is simply not true. Read her biography, written by her Carmelite Sisters who spent the last 56 years of her life with her. Page 344: “In special cases she answered more fully, having at her service a maschine that made a carbon copy so she could keep one out of prudence. Later afriend and benefactor of the Community offered her an Olivetti. This maschine had a memory, which for her was a very nice gift because it could delete without erasing and make as many copies as she wanted. Tenaciously, she learned how to use it despite already being in her seventies, and she did it!” “In her seventies” means that she used it in the early 1980ies. Soobviously Dr. Sungenis’ claim is false and he is just very badly informed.

          He also claims that Sr. Lucia has never confirmed the validity of the consecration of Russia. BESIDES in her letters, she did it

          – in a letter to Pope John Paul II. on Nov 8, 1989 (probably after another encounter with Our Lady): “‘Sim esta feita, tal como Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Marco del 1984” (see the book of Cardinal Bertone, p. 94 f.)

          – In her own uncompleted book “The Message of Fatima”, which was published by the Carmel of Coimbra in 2006, p.53 of the German version: “the consecration requested by Our Lady of Fatima … was made by Pope John Paul II.”

          – In her conversation with Cardinal Padiyara of India, recorded by her translator Carlos Evaristo, on 11.10.1992: Lucia: “This all caused that the consecration was accepted.” Card. Padiyara: “So the consecration was indeed accepted by Our Lady?” Sr. Lucia: “Yes!”
          A member of the entourage of Card. Padiyara, the Indian bishop Michaelappa, asked again: “So it is not necessary to consecrate Russia one more time?”
          Sr. Lucia: “There is no necessity to consecrate Russia again…”
          Carlos Evaristo: “But did Russia convert?”
          Sr. Lucia: “Yes. All the news and reports speak for themselve.”

          – In her encounter with Cardinal Vidal on 11.10.1993, Evaristo asked her again:
          “So it is true that the consecration was done properly?”
          Sr. Lucia: “It is true, it was done properly.”
          Carlos Evaristo: “And the conversion of Russia had begun?”
          Sr. Lucia: “It has begun … the Holy Father made the consecration and it was valid.”

          In April 2000, Cardinal Bertone as a special Delegate of Pope John Paul II. was sent to the Carmel of Coimbra to interview Sr. Lucia and prepare the publication of the Third Secret. Card. Bertone told me when I interviewed him in the presence of Msgr. Georg Gänswein on 3.7.2000, in the translation of Msgr. Dr. Gänswein: “Die Visionen oder Einsprechungen, die Schwester Lucia von Unserer Lieben Frau empfing, dauerten möglicherweise bis 1984 an. Sie sagte, dass die Gottesmutter zufrieden gewesen sei mit der Weihe an ihr Unbeflecktes Herz am 25. März 1984, weil es dem entsprach, was sie selbst gewollt hätte.”
          English: “The Visions and locutions Sr. Lucia received went probably on until at least 1984. She told me that Our Lady was satisfied with the consecration to Her Immaculate Heart in 25 March 1984, and that it was what she had requested.”

          In his book “L’Ultima Veggente di Fatima” (Milano 2007), Card. Bertone repeats this statement on p. 94/95: “Sr. Lucia confirmed to me that the solemn and universal consecration was what Our lady had requested… in our conversation she pointed to several dates between 1984 and 1989 when she tried to get a confirmation from her celestial Mother that what was done followed the divine plan. When she was sure, she wrote it down and confirmed it.” (Please excuse that I translate freely from the German translation; I don’t have the English edition of this book with me)

          I personally interviewed her niece, still living in Aljustrel who for many times was asked to ask Sr. Lucia (who regularly received family members in the Carmel) if Russia really was consecrated. She always got the same reply: “Our Lady has requested that the people pray for the consecration of Russia, and see, Russia now has converted.”

          see the whole interview (in English):https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEANcKr5s30&t=13s

          There can be no doubt: A vision of Our Lady at some point between 1984 and 1989 convinced Sr. Lucia that the consecration was valid and accepted by heaven. And indeed the promised conversion of Russia took place and even turned out to be the biggest miracle of our times!

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a9af54c2da236913096896f6c68e88de415c3df4954794ba3acdae7b7fe53763.jpg

          Reply
          • Thank you again Dr. Hesemann or you prompt and extensive response, I really appreciate that. I am in no way arguing that nothing happened. Signs our obviously there. But to play devil’s advocate here, under assumption of Russia’s full conversion are we to conclude the proselytism as today is popularly put indeed a sin, and we should stick to the notion of ecumenical dialogue without trying to convert Orthodox to our Catholic faith? Are all the saints, doctors and fathers of the Church that taught us that to be outside of communion with Rome (hope we can agree on this) is to be outside of Christ’s mystical Body, now null and void?

            Under the assumption that Russia did fully convert that would mean that our Catholic Faith is not the right, but the Orthodox is.

            But Pope Pius XI tells us in Encyclical Mortalium Animos that: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

            I am respecting your view, but fully submitting to the unchanged “polyphonic tones” that echo through history of Tradition solely within Catholic faith.

            And I wholeheartedly agree that Russia is our only glimmer of hope, both in Middle East and West.

            Sister Lucia wrote at the beginning of 1943 regarding that act of consecration effected by the Pope on October 31, 1942: “God has already shown me His satisfaction with the act, although incomplete according to His wishes, performed by the Holy Father and several bishops. He promises in return to put a stop to the war soon. The Conversion of Russia is not for now.”

            So there is an example of similar consecration like the one in 1984, and even though potentially incomplete communism fell.

            Okay, you refuted the notion of Lucia’s teeth and that sister Lucia has been writing on a typewriter, but I still have doubts on the real reason why Lucia said that if indeed she did without explicit orders to do so which she would obey.

            In November of 2013 president Putin was inquiring about possible consecration, according to Fr. Gruner who spoke to Russian Embassy accredited to Holy See. Why was president Putin interested in something that was already done almost 30 years ago at that point? Has he been that misinformed?

            Why is cardinal Burke asking for consecration today? Cardinal Cordes as someone who witnessed first-hand stated few days ago that Russia was NOT mentioned explicitly in JPII 1984’s consecration. Was he misinformed as well?

            But if the consecration was indeed valid, and we leave in so called “period of peace” are we to conclude that the “Bishop dressed in white” is also something that related to failed assassination attempt of JPII?

            And finally to the elephant in the room. In a period where the Church crisis is at the all-time what is it with the “explanation of the third secret”? You keep referring to his eminence cardinal Bertone, for whom we know has stated: “The cinematographic reconstructions of the envelope hidden in the night table of the Pope are pure fantasies” (Fatima Crusader 86, pg 35)

            But this is in obvious contradiction to what his eminence Cardinal Ottaviani and the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla stated.

            If consecration was valid, why the immanent threats of worldwide conflicts and deep crisis within the Church?

            As we are aware the message states: “If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”

            So if the requests were indeed GRANTED in 1984., why is Heavens not holding their end of the bargain?

            Therefore I can only conclude that we collectively failed. As we do penance, prayer, reparation, devotion to First Five Saturdays, and daily Rosary I am certain that will entice God’s Mercy towards our shepards to take courage and do the proper consecration.

            Otherwise the words of our Lord from 1931 to sister Lucy will be fulfilled:” Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.’

            “They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.’

          • I am not so sure…
            Do you think that a carmélite nun out of complete obedience, according to her religious vows, would dare to contradict or refuse a strict order from her hierarchy to say that the Consecration of 1984 was.properly done?
            I know a woman who was once a member of the CRC (Contre Réforme Catholique) of the late Abbot Georges de Nantes. She told me that Fr de Nantes befriended the local bishop of Fatima Leiria Mgr do Amaral, and this last one confided him that he himself conveyed this order to Sr Lucy.
            I could later find a confirmation of this fact on the Web but I forgot the link.
            If that is true this would explain the change in her declarations after 1989 versus those she made between 1984 and 1989.

      • For some reason this comment didn’t get through. Hope it does this time.

        Thank you again Dr. Hesemann for you prompt and extensive response. I am in no way arguing that nothing happened. Signs our obviously there. But to play devil’s advocate here, under assumption of Russia’s full conversion are we to conclude the proselytism as today is popularly put indeed a sin, and we should stick to the notion of ecumenical dialogue without trying to convert Orthodox to our Catholic faith? Are all the saints, doctors and fathers of the Church that taught us that to be outside of communion with Rome (hope we can agree on this) is to be outside of Christ’s mystical Body, now null and void?

        Under the assumption that Russia did fully convert that would mean that our Catholic Faith is not the right, but the Orthodox is.

        But Pope Pius XI tells us in Encyclical Mortalium Animos that: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

        I am respecting your view, but fully submitting to the unchanged “polyphonic tones” that echo through history of Tradition solely within Catholic faith.

        And I wholeheartedly agree that Russia is our only glimmer of hope, both in Middle East and West.

        Sister Lucia wrote at the beginning of 1943 regarding that act of consecration effected by the Pope on October 31, 1942: “God has already shown me His satisfaction with the act, although incomplete according to His wishes, performed by the Holy Father and several bishops. He promises in return to put a stop to the war soon. The Conversion of Russia is not for now.”

        So there is an example of similar consecration like the one in 1984, and similarly even if not complete communism fell just like when sister Lucia stated that God shortened the WWII.

        Okay, you refuted the notion of Lucia’s teeth and the fact that sister Lucia has been writing on a typewriter, but I still have doubts on the real reason why Lucia said that if indeed she did. If she would have been given orders to do so she would most likely obey even against her will.

        In 2013 November president Putin was inquiring about possible consecration, according to Fr. Gruner who spoke to Russian Embassy accredited to Holy See. Why was president Putin interested in something that was already done almost 30 years ago at that point? Has he been that misinformed?

        Why is cardinal Burke asking for consecration today? Cardinal Cordes as someone who witnessed first-hand stated few days ago that Russia was NOT mentioned explicitly in 1984’s consecration. Was he misinformed as well?

        But if the consecration was indeed valid, and we leave in so called “period of peace” are we to conclude that the “Bishop dressed in white” is also something that related to failed assassination attempt of JPII?

        And finally to the elephant in the room. In a period where the Church crisis is at the all-time what is it with the “explanation of the third secret”? You keep referring to his eminence cardinal Bertone, for whom we know has stated: “The cinematographic reconstructions of the envelope hidden in the night table of the Pope are pure fantasies” (Fatima Crusader 86, pg 35)

        But this is in obvious contradiction to what his eminence Cardinal Ottaviani and the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla stated.

        If consecration was valid, why the immanent threats of worldwide conflicts and deep crisis within the Church?

        As we are aware the message states: “If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”

        So if the requests were indeed GRANTED in 1984., why is Heavens not holding their end of the bargain?

        Therefore I can only conclude that we collectively failed. As we do penance, prayer, reparation, devotion to First Five Saturdays, and daily Rosary I am certain that will entice God’s Mercy to take courage and do the proper consecration.

        Otherwise the words of our Lord from 1931 to sister Lucy will be fulfilled:” Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.’

        “They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.’

        Reply
      • For some reason this comment keeps appearing as spam. Hope moderators allowed it this time.

        Thank you again Dr. Hesemann for you prompt and extensive response. I really appreciate that. I am in no way arguing that nothing happened. Signs our obviously there. But to play devil’s advocate here, under assumption of Russia’s full conversion are we to conclude the proselytism as today is popularly put indeed a sin, and we should stick to the notion of ecumenical dialogue without trying to convert Orthodox to our Catholic faith? Are all the saints, doctors and fathers of the Church that taught us that to be outside of communion with Rome (hope we can agree on this) is to be outside of Christ’s mystical Body, now null and void?

        Under the assumption that Russia did fully convert that would mean that our Catholic Faith is not the right, but the Orthodox is.

        But Pope Pius XI tells us in Encyclical Mortalium Animos that: “The Catholic Church alone is keeping the true worship. This is the font of truth, this is the house of faith, this is the temple of God; if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation….Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ, no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.”

        I am respecting your view, but fully submitting to the unchanged “polyphonic tones” that echo through history of Tradition solely within Catholic faith.

        And I wholeheartedly agree that Russia is our only glimmer of hope, both in Middle East and West.

        Sister Lucia wrote at the beginning of 1943 regarding that act of consecration effected by the Pope on October 31, 1942: “God has already shown me His satisfaction with the act, although incomplete according to His wishes, performed by the Holy Father and several bishops. He promises in return to put a stop to the war soon. The Conversion of Russia is not for now.”

        So there is an example of similar consecration like the one in 1984, and similarly even if not complete communism fell just like when sister Lucia stated that God shortened the WWII.

        Okay, you refuted the notion of Lucia’s teeth and the fact that sister Lucia has been writing on a typewriter, but I still have doubts on the real reason why Lucia said that if indeed she did. If she would have been given orders to do so she would most likely obey even against her will.

        In 2013 November president Putin was inquiring about possible consecration, according to Fr. Gruner who spoke to Russian Embassy accredited to Holy See. Why was president Putin interested in something that was already done almost 30 years ago at that point? Has he been that misinformed?

        Why is cardinal Burke asking for consecration today? Cardinal Cordes as someone who witnessed first-hand stated few days ago that Russia was NOT mentioned explicitly in 1984’s consecration. Was he misinformed as well?

        But if the consecration was indeed valid, and we leave in so called “period of peace” are we to conclude that the “Bishop dressed in white” is also something that related to failed assassination attempt of JPII?

        And finally to the elephant in the room. In a period where the Church crisis is at the all-time what is it with the “explanation of the third secret”? You keep referring to his eminence cardinal Bertone, for whom we know has stated: “The cinematographic reconstructions of the envelope hidden in the night table of the Pope are pure fantasies” (Fatima Crusader 86, pg 35)

        But this is in obvious contradiction to what his eminence Cardinal Ottaviani and the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla stated.

        If consecration was valid, why the immanent threats of worldwide conflicts and deep crisis within the Church?

        As we are aware the message states: “If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”

        So if the requests were indeed GRANTED in 1984., why is Heavens not holding their end of the bargain?

        Therefore I can only conclude that we collectively failed. As we do penance, prayer, reparation, devotion to First Five Saturdays, and daily Rosary I am certain that will entice God’s Mercy to take courage and do the proper consecration.

        Otherwise the words of our Lord from 1931 to sister Lucy will be fulfilled:” Make it known to My ministers, given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune. It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.’

        “They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will have already spread its errors in the world, provoking wars and persecutions against the Church. The Holy Father will have much to suffer.’

        Reply
        • Well, Sr. Lucia made clear that Our Lady never promised a Russian “return to Rome” but a conversion from Communism. I really recommend you to read Carlos Evaristos “Two Hours with Sister Lucia” which has three pages of her replies to the questions on “the validity of the consecration of Russia”. On 11.10.1992, in the presence of Cardinal Padiyara, Evaristo asked her specifically (Itranslate from the German translation now since I just don’t have the English version of this book): “But does the conversion of Russia not mean that the Russian people convert to Catholicism? When Sr. Lucia replies: “The Holy Virgin never said that. So many misconceptions were spread. It is afactthatRussia, communism, the atheist power did not allow the people to practise their faith. Now the people have the possibility of a decision, to stay what theyare or to convert. They have the free choice and indeed many conversions happen. And this man in Russia (she refers to Gorbachev) is an instrument of God.” One year later, in the presence of Cardinal Vidal, she repeats her conviction. Quote: Carlos Evaristo: “And the conversion of Russia has begun?” Sr. Lucia: “It has begun. Yes, tzhe word conversion … we should not make an error and misunderstand it. The word cinversion, converting, indicates a change. Aconversion is a change. From bad to good. It does not mean that all vad will disappear, but it is a change from bad to good. That’s what the word means. The conversion takes place, thanks to God, in peace.”

          We have the choice. We can listen to the words of Sr. Lucia or we can project our own belief systems and definitions onto the promise of Our Lady. The instrument used by Our Lady to make Her wishes known was Sr. Lucia. Why don’t we trust her when she tells us that Our Lady accepted the consecration and that this is the conversion she promised?Don’t we accept a gift so precious just because we expected something different? The conversion of Russia from atheist communism to orthodox Christianity in just a decade is the biggest miracle of our times. W all should be grateful, since, at the same time, it prevented a Nuclear War which was predictedf by Our Lady through Sr. Lucia for the year 1985. Russia converted and is a true Christian nation today. We should better pray for the conversion of the West now, which needs it more urgent than anyone else!

          Reply
          • Father Francisco Veras Pacheco, official interpreter, (who met with Lucia on October 11, 1992) unconditionally states that “booklet titled ‘Two Hours With Sister Lucia’ published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed.” (Fatima Crusader 46, Page 15)

            “We have the choice. We can listen to the words of Sr. Lucia or we can project our own belief systems and definitions onto the promise of Our Lady. The instrument used by Our Lady to make Her wishes known was Sr. Lucia. Why don’t we trust her when she tells us that Our Lady accepted the consecration and that this is the conversion she promised”

            If that is the case, then all this Fatima talk should be put to bed once and for all. What is the meaning of it today? Our Lady never gave other requests to Pope and bishops, but to consecrate the Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

            Letter from Lucia to pope Pius XII:” In several intimate communications our Lord has not stopped insisting on this request, promising lately, to shorten the days of tribulation which He has determined to punish the nations for their crimes, through war, famine and several persecutions of the Holy Church and Your Holiness, if you will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness. (Tuy, Spain, 2nd of December of 1940.

            Maria Lucia de Jesus)

            If proper consecration happened as specified and Russia converted whiteout the communion with Rome, then there is nothing more to add in today’s relation to the Fatima other than to apply it as you would the essence of the Gospel message:

            ”And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mt 3,2

            Doctor, you’ve co-written a book with Pope Benedict XVI” s brother, and perhaps even have the knowledge first hand.

            Pope Benedict on May 13, 2010, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima stated: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.

            Do you share belief that the third secret published in 2000 is in relation to failed assassination attempt of JPII in 1981 or something that is still to happen in the future?

            It is very improbable that we have the mentions of “bishop dressed in white” in 2000, that Fatima seers “had the impression that it was the Holy Father” and to believe that the city in ruins and martyred “Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions” is something that already happened metaphorically in 1981?

            It is unprecedented from the times of St Peter to Gregory VI, St Celestine V, or Gregory XII to have someone keep their title as Pope Emeritus and the Pope Francis to avoid the title on of Pope on multiple occasions and consequently as official Annuario Pontificio lists him: Francis / Bishop of Rome.

            I cannot give the answer which one of the two is the “bishop dressed in white”, as pope Francis called himself that a week ago in Fatima (bispo vestido de branco) and Pope Pius X terrifying prophecy of fleeing pontiff sees the like of his name which could be (Giuseppe-Joseph) related to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

            Either Fatima prophetic message is over as you state, and the vision pertaining to third secret is a thing of past.

            Or the consecration did not happen (fully) and therefore the conditional prophecy is still “up in the air”.

            Despite the best intention to put all of this under the rug, the “the stones will cry out” if faithful shall hold their peace.

          • For some reason I am being labeled as spam, so I had to make another disqus profile.

            Father Francisco Veras Pacheco, official interpreter, (who met with Lucia on October 11, 1992) unconditionally states that “booklet titled ‘Two Hours With Sister Lucia’ published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed.” (Fatima Crusader 46, Page 15)

            “We have the choice. We can listen to the words of Sr. Lucia or we can project our own belief systems and definitions onto the promise of Our Lady. The instrument used by Our Lady to make Her wishes known was Sr. Lucia. Why don’t we trust her when she tells us that Our Lady accepted the consecration and that this is the conversion she promised”

            If that is the case, then all this Fatima talk should be put to bed once and for all. What is the meaning of it today? Our Lady never gave other requests to Pope and bishops, but to consecrate the Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

            Letter from Lucia to pope Pius XII:” In several intimate communications our Lord has not stopped insisting on this request, promising lately, to shorten the days of tribulation which He has determined to punish the nations for their crimes, through war, famine and several persecutions of the Holy Church and Your Holiness, if you will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness. (Tuy, Spain, 2nd of December of 1940.

            Maria Lucia de Jesus)

            If proper consecration happened as specified and Russia converted whiteout the communion with Rome, then there is nothing more to add in today’s relation to the Fatima other than to apply it as you would the essence of the Gospel message:

            ”And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mt 3,2

            Doctor, you’ve co-written a book with Pope Benedict XVI” s brother, and perhaps even have the knowledge first hand.

            Pope Benedict on May 13, 2010, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima stated: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.

            Do you share belief that the third secret published in 2000 is in relation to failed assassination attempt of JPII in 1981 or something that is still to happen in the future?

            It is very improbable that we have the mentions of “bishop dressed in white” in 2000, that Fatima seers “had the impression that it was the Holy Father” and to believe that the city in ruins and martyred “Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions” is something that already happened metaphorically in 1981?

            It is unprecedented from the times of St Peter to Gregory VI, St Celestine V, or Gregory XII to have someone keep their title as Pope Emeritus and the Pope Francis to avoid the title on of Pope on multiple occasions and consequently as official Annuario Pontificio lists him: Francis / Bishop of Rome.

            I cannot give the answer which one of the two is the “bishop dressed in white”, as pope Francis called himself that a week ago in Fatima (bispo vestido de branco) and Pope Pius X terrifying prophecy of fleeing pontiff sees the like of his name which could be (Giuseppe-Joseph) related to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

            Either Fatima prophetic message is over as you state, and the vision pertaining to third secret is a thing of past.

            Or the consecration did not happen (fully) and therefore the conditional prophecy is still “up in the air”.

            Despite the best intention to put all of this under the rug, the “the stones will cry out” if faithful shall hold their peace.

          • “…we should affirm that Lucia has always thought the *conversion* of Russia is not to be understood as being limited to the return of the Russian people to the Orthodox Christian religion, rejecting the Marxist atheism of the Soviets, but rather as a total and perfect conversion to the one, true Roman Catholic Church.”

            * = italics in original

            Source: Alonso, Fr. Joaquin. The Secret of Fatima: Fact and Legend. 1976, Centro Mariano, Madrid, Spain. English translation copyright 1979, Ravengate Press, 122 pages, pages 83-84.

            Fr. Alonso was the official archivist of Fatima, yet his monumental work on Fatima has never been published.

          • Well, whatever Lucia thought in her conversations with Fr. Alonso in the 1970ies and what she learned later through her visions, apparitions and locutions are two pairs of shoes. We also don’t know how much this claim reflects Fr. Alonsos point of view maybe more than Lucia’s. I refer ti her statements in the 80ies and 90ies, which were different, Besides, when I consider the many compromises of the Catholic Church to the materialist philosophy of “enlightenment” and the relativism of the West, with bishops who are afraid to condemn a culture of sin and hedonism and theological seminars teaching the heresies of the protestant theologian Bultmann and others, questioning all supernatural events described in the Holy Scripture, I am glad to see that Russia returned to a pre-enlightenment, traditional orthodoxy which is closer the the Catholic doctrine as it was in 1917 than what we call “mainstream catholicism” today… with its many elements of the modernism originally condemned by Pius X. … given that most Catholic countries in the West lost their faith or see it in a state of decline, should we indeed condemn the Russians for chosing their traditional orthodoxy, the faith of their ancestors?

          • Unbelievable stuff. You are denying the essential truth that the Catholic Church is the one ark of salvation. You are saying that, because of the crisis in the Church (foretold, of course, by Our Lady at Fatima – the suppressed part of the Third Secret) it’s OK for the Russians to “choose the faith of their ancestors” – the schismatic “faith”. How can that possibly be right? How can choosing schism possibly please God?

            One of the bloggers over at Catholic Truth alerted me to this discussion by saying, sadly, that IP5 is not reliable. Sadly, I now fully agree. With all due respect, Dr Hesemann, you are no Fatima expert. You have chosen dodgy “sources”, enemies of Fatima, on which to base your speculative theories. What a pity. Study the one and only truly reliable source for Fatima – go to http://www.fatima.org – and stay there! No other Fatima website is of the same quality and 100% reliable.

          • I am glad that you see it as the events of the future. If it was a thing of past I would be able understand that Russia was consecrated as requested, but since it is not this is why I cannot.

            All three 3 Fatima parts are to be seen in the same light as we read the Scriptures and the Gospels. Story of Jonah and Nineveh show us that disasters can be PREVENTED if we SHALL follow God’s explicit commandments. Since people of Nineveh did what God asked them, God held His part of the deal; “And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not..” Jonah 3,10

            Gospels make complete sense if all four are read in relation to one another, example how we have the last 7 sentences from the Cross.

            So the message of Fatima is interrelated in the same way. It is not technically 3 secrets. It is the same secret, just in 3 interrelated parts.

            First part-Vision of hell this where most of humanity goes and this is the imminent threat for all:

            …“You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If you do what I SHALL tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be PEACE.’…

            What is that our Mother SHALL tell us?

            Second part- …The punishment of the world is at hand for its so great sins by means of war, famine and persecutions directed against the Church and the Holy Father. To PREVENT this I SHALL come to ask for the CONSECRATION of RUSSIA to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays of the month.

            It is a conditional offer, just like with Nineveh: “Otherwise Russia will spread her errors throughout the world….Many good men will be martyred”

            Our Lady states:” the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.’

            If we assume that Russia has been consecrated, okay, but we still the biggest part of the puzzle missing.

            Deduction is simple. No peace=No consecration.

            Third part which is revealed about the death of the “Bishop in white” and martyrdom of “Many good men”from the second part can only been seen as result of failing in Our Lady’s request, and not by all means. It is the logical scenario due to the failings of the second part.

            Fatima certainly has prophetic tone for conversions of Muslims, which will take place when Immaculate Heart Triumphs.

            Modern day Russia undeniably is not a current threat to Catholics, you are right. The faith appears to be flourishing. But remember this:

            “There is a way which seemeth just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death. (Prov 14: 12; 16: 25)”

            We know that Russia is the key, but only under the Catholic umbrella, as there is no salvation outside of it. Russia will either save us now, or chastise us first, and save us later once consecrated.

            NATO pushing their buttons one time too many can easily tip Russia over the edge, causing them to stomp over godless weak Europe in the matter of the days.

            if pope JPII consecrated Russia can you tell me why do you think there is no PEACE when Our Lady promised it to us?

            The message clearly states: “the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.

            Yes, the islam’s invasion is a masonic plan that didn’t succeed in past with communism, I agree. But all of that stops in a blink of an eye if Russia really gets consecrated.

            As this champion of the faith put it in address given on May 19th, 2017 at the fourth annual Rome Life Forum: “In fact, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary did not take place, as she requested, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays did not become the practice of the universal Church.” (His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke).

            I have to agree with him even if 10 Lucias said yes it was valid for whatever reason, because Heaven is certainly sending us a different message.

            Peace is but a distant dream; all I see is apostasy within, physical persecution in east, spiritual in the west, and in the midst of it all new schism on the horizon.

            “traditional orthodoxy which is closer the Catholic doctrine as it was in 1917 than what we call “mainstream catholicism” today”

            Certainly true, but Catholicm is alive and well. It might be smaller, and maybe mostly hidden, but alive and well in Tradition and Tridentine Mass.

          • I am glad that you see it as the events of the future. If it was a thing of past I would be able understand that Russia was consecrated as requested, but since it is not this is why I cannot.

            All three 3 Fatima parts are to be seen in the same light as we read the Scriptures and the Gospels. Story of Jonah and Nineveh show us that disasters can be PREVENTED if we SHALL follow God’s explicit commandments. Since people of Nineveh did what God asked them, God held His part of the deal; “And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not..” Jonah 3,10

            Gospels make complete sense if all four are read in relation to one another, example how we have the last 7 sentences from the Cross.

            So the message of Fatima is interrelated in the same way. It is not technically 3 secrets. It is the same secret, just in 3 interrelated parts.

            First part-Vision of hell this where most of humanity goes and this is the imminent threat for all:

            …“You have seen hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If you do what I SHALL tell you, many souls will be saved and there will be PEACE.’…

            What is that our Mother SHALL tell us?

            Second part- …The punishment of the world is at hand for its so great sins by means of war, famine and persecutions directed against the Church and the Holy Father. To PREVENT this I SHALL come to ask for the CONSECRATION of RUSSIA to my Immaculate Heart and the Communion of Reparation on the first Saturdays of the month.

            It is a conditional offer, just like with Nineveh: “Otherwise Russia will spread her errors throughout the world….Many good men will be martyred”

            Our Lady states:” the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.’

            If we assume that Russia has been consecrated, okay, but we still the biggest part of the puzzle missing.

            Deduction is simple. No peace=No consecration.

            Third part which is revealed about the death of the “Bishop in white” and martyrdom of “Many good men “from the second part can only been seen as result of failing in Our Lady’s request, and not by all means. It is the logical scenario due to the failings of the second part.

          • Part 2 of comment:

            Fatima certainly has prophetic tone for conversions of Muslims, which will take place when Immaculate Heart Triumphs.

            Modern day Russia undeniably is not a current threat to Catholics, you are right. The faith appears to be flourishing. But remember this:

            “There is a way which seemeth just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death. (Prov 14: 12; 16: 25)”

            We know that Russia is the key, but only under the Catholic umbrella, as there is no salvation outside of it. Russia will either save us now, or chastise us first, and save us later once consecrated.

            NATO pushing their buttons one time too many can easily tip Russia over the edge, causing them to stomp over godless weak Europe in the matter of the days.

            if pope JPII consecrated Russia can you tell me why do you think there is no PEACE when Our Lady promised it to us?

            The message clearly states: “the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.

            Yes, the islam’s invasion is a masonic plan that didn’t succeed in past with communism, I agree. But all of that stops in a blink of an eye if Russia really gets consecrated.

            As this champion of the faith put it in address given on May 19th, 2017 at the fourth annual Rome Life Forum: “In fact, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary did not take place, as she requested, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays did not become the practice of the universal Church.” (His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke).

            I have to agree with him even if 10 Lucias said yes it was valid for whatever reason, because Heaven is certainly sending us a different message.

            Peace is but a distant dream; all I see is apostasy within, physical persecution in east, spiritual in the west, and in the midst of it all new schism on the horizon.

            “traditional orthodoxy which is closer the Catholic doctrine as it was in 1917 than what we call “mainstream catholicism” today”

            Certainly true, but Catholicism is alive and well. It might be smaller, and maybe mostly hidden, but alive and well in Tradition and Tridentine Mass.

          • Part 2 of comment, that has hard time getting through again.

            Fatima certainly has prophetic tone for conversions of Muslims, which will take place when Immaculate Heart Triumphs.

            Modern day Russia undeniably is not a current threat to Catholics, you are right. The faith appears to be flourishing. But remember this:

            “There is a way which seemeth just to a man: but the ends thereof lead to death. (Prov 14: 12; 16: 25)”

            We know that Russia is the key, but only under the Catholic umbrella, as there is no salvation outside of it. Russia will either save us now, or chastise us first, and save us later once consecrated.

            NATO pushing their buttons one time too many can easily tip Russia over the edge, causing them to stomp over godless weak Europe in the matter of the days.

            If pope JPII consecrated Russia can you tell me why do you think there is no PEACE when Our Lady promised it to us?

            The message clearly states: “the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.

            Yes, the islam’s invasion is a masonic plan that didn’t succeed in past with communism, I agree. But all of that stops in a blink of an eye if Russia really gets consecrated.

            As this champion of the faith put it in address given on May 19th, 2017 at the fourth annual Rome Life Forum: “In fact, the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary did not take place, as she requested, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays did not become the practice of the universal Church.” (His Eminence Raymond Cardinal Burke).

            I have to agree with him even if 10 Lucias said yes it was valid for whatever reason, because Heaven is certainly sending us a different message.

            Peace is but a distant dream; all I see is apostasy within, physical persecution in east, spiritual in the west, and in the midst of it all new schism on the horizon.

            “traditional orthodoxy which is closer the Catholic doctrine as it was in 1917 than what we call “mainstream catholicism” today”

            Certainly true, but Catholicism is alive and well. It might be smaller, and maybe mostly hidden, but alive and well in Tradition and Tridentine Mass.

          • Carlos Evaristos – are you KIDDING? Is THIS one of your wonderful sources? Incredible.

            I quote: “In the 5th Century St. Jerome was confronted with a crude tract written by an obscure, unlettered young man named Helvidius, who denied the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although St. Jerome ultimately responded to Helvidius, demolishing his flimsy arguments, the great saint had hesitated at first, ““for fear that by replying I should be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation.””
            The same sort of problem arises in addressing two crude pamphlets produced in 1992-1993 by one Carlos Evaristo, an obscure young man from Portugal who claims to have interviewed Sister Lucy on two different occasions in her cloistered convent. According to Evaristo, during these two ““interviews”” Sister Lucy essentially retracted everything she had said about the Message of Fatima during the previous 75 years.
            For nearly five years the pamphlets were justly ignored by the Catholic and secular press, having been immediately exposed as bunk by leading Fatima experts, including renowned French ““Fatimist”” Frère François de Marie des Anges. In 1998, however, the pamphlets resurfaced and received considerable publicity.
            This development prompted us to commission the following article on Mr. Evaristo’’s notorious pamphlets. Although we, like St. Jerome, had some concern that by replying to Mr. Evaristo we, “should be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation,” the recent publicity for his pamphlets required that we address the blatant contradictions of the Fatima Message that Evaristo has presented as the words of Sister Lucy.
            Has Sister Lucy repudiated all of her prior statements about the consecration and conversion of Russia and the Third Secret of Fatima? Or is Mr. Evaristo the bearer of a “new” Message of Fatima, conveniently revised to meet the demands of “ecumania” and the New World Order taking shape around us? read the evidence and the arguments marshaled by Mr. Ferrara and decide for yourself. http://fatimacrusader.com/cr57/cr57pg03.asp

          • Thank you EditorCT, that was along what I replied as well, but has been deleted 3 times (or better yet labeled as spam.)

            Father Francisco Veras Pacheco, official interpreter, (who met with Lucia on October 11, 1992) unconditionally states that “booklet titled ‘Two Hours With Sister Lucia’ published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed.” (Fatima Crusader 46, Page 15)

            “We have the choice. We can listen to the words of Sr. Lucia or we can project our own belief systems and definitions onto the promise of Our Lady. The instrument used by Our Lady to make Her wishes known was Sr. Lucia. Why don’t we trust her when she tells us that Our Lady accepted the consecration and that this is the conversion she promised”

            If that is the case, then all this Fatima talk should be put to bed once and for all. What is the meaning of it today? Our Lady never gave other requests to Pope and bishops, but to consecrate the Russia to the Immaculate Heart?

            Letter from Lucia to pope Pius XII:” In several intimate communications our Lord has not stopped insisting on this request, promising lately, to shorten the days of tribulation which He has determined to punish the nations for their crimes, through war, famine and several persecutions of the Holy Church and Your Holiness, if you will consecrate the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, with a special mention for Russia, and order that all the Bishops of the world do the same in union with Your Holiness. (Tuy, Spain, 2nd of December of 1940.

            Maria Lucia de Jesus)

            If proper consecration happened as specified and Russia converted whiteout the communion with Rome, then there is nothing more to add in today’s relation to the Fatima other than to apply it as you would the essence of the Gospel message:

            ”And in those days cometh John the Baptist preaching in the desert of Judea. And saying: Do penance: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Mt 3,2

          • Doctor, you’ve co-written a book with Pope Benedict XVI” s brother, and perhaps even have the knowledge first hand.

            Pope Benedict on May 13, 2010, the Feast of Our Lady of Fatima stated: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.”

            Do you share belief that the third secret published in 2000 is in relation to failed assassination attempt of JPII in 1981 or something that is still to happen in the future?

            It is very improbable that we have the mentions of “bishop dressed in white” in 2000, that Fatima seers “had the impression that it was the Holy Father” and to believe that the city in ruins and martyred “Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions” is something that already happened metaphorically in 1981?

            It is unprecedented from the times of St Peter to Gregory VI, St Celestine V, or Gregory XII to have someone keep their title as Pope Emeritus and the Pope Francis to avoid the title on of Pope on multiple occasions and consequently as official Annuario Pontificio lists him: Francis / Bishop of Rome.

            I cannot give the answer which one of the two is the “bishop dressed in white”, as pope Francis called himself that a week ago in Fatima (bispo vestido de branco) and Pope Pius X terrifying prophecy of fleeing pontiff sees the like of his name which could be (Giuseppe-Joseph) related to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI.

            Either Fatima prophetic message is over as you state, and the vision pertaining to third secret is a thing of past.

            Or the consecration did not happen (fully) and therefore the conditional prophecy is still “up in the air”.

            Despite the best intention to put all of this under the rug, the “the stones will cry out” if faithful shall hold their peace.

          • I made it very clear in my book that I consider the interpretation published in the year 2000 as too optimistic and that I fully agree with Pope Benedict, Cardinal Koch and others that its warning refers at least as much to the future, foreshadowed by the ongoing persecution if the Church. The conversion of Russia happened but there is no indication, neither in the text of the 2nd nor in the 3rd secret that the vision of the third secret describes events happening before it. Since we continued to sin, new chastisements will follow, but this time God’s instrument for our punishment is not communism, but Islamism, already indicated by the name “Fatima” which is an invitation to conversion for Muslims. Modern-day Christian Russia can only liberate Europe from godless materialism, hedonism and islamization!

            Our Lady made very clear that only a communist Russia would cause “persecutions of the Church”. Modern-day orthodox Russia does not persecute the Church, it supports it and is the sole defensor of Christianity in the Middle East where they suffer the most severe persecution nowadays.

          • Michael Hesemann

            It is not “modern day Orthodox Russia”, it is still atheistic materialistic Russia. If you do your homework you’ll find that religion is still very much regulated in Russia and that a majority do not practice any religion. But even so, Russian Orthodoxy is not Catholicism and therefore not a means of salvation for souls. Do you think Our Lady was less concerned about this than what particular ideology was in charge in the country?

            Here’s a fact for you: Fr. Forunata di noto, the respected Italian priest who founded and runs the METER Association that tracks and reports online child sexual abuse sites to international enforcement agencies, stated a few years ago that 99% of the Domains hosting child pornography on websites in the Western world are based in Russia. Clearly, Russia is no more Chirstian or godly than the rest of the apostate world today.

            Once again I remind you that Fatima is about unprecendeted supernatural events, not earthly ones, which are always secondary.

          • Michael Hesemann

            Nowhere is it recorded that Our Lady referred to “Communist Russia”. She spoke only of the “errors of Russia”, which may be taken to mean the errors of atheistic materialism that infects the entire world today, including Russia. Communism can easily adapt itself to the Capitalist ideal. Just look at modern day China. Catholics are still very marginalised and restricted in Russia, so don’t fool yourself and others. Our Lady intends that nation’s conversion to the true Faith, nothing less. You should not play down heaven’s intention with worldly talk of regime change. It’s about much more than regime change.

          • “Modern-day Christian Russia can only liberate Europe from godless materialism, hedonism and islamization!”

            It’s a laugh a minute with you, Dr. Hesemann.

            Russia a Christian nation? Well, apart from the almost total non-attendance at church, Russia also has 30 million Moslems. As President Putin has said before now, “Russia is an Islamic nation”.

          • SSPX News 20 May 2017

            According to a Pew Research Center study published on May 10, Religious Belief and National Belonging in Central and Eastern Europe, 71% of Russian citizens identify as Orthodox and yet only 6% of Orthodox Christians in Russia attend church weekly. (Orthodox median church
            attendance in Central and Eastern Europe overall is 10%.) Moreover, according to the Russian Orthodox news service, Pravoslavie.Ru, only around 4.3 million Russians took part in this year’s Paschal (Easter) services—or roughly 3% of the Russian population. This is astonishing given that the Russian Orthodox Church oversees approximately 150 million souls worldwide, or roughly
            60% of the global Eastern Orthodox population.

            With the Russian religious revival, much shallower than many assume and the Russian Orthodox Church choosing to remain in schism from Catholicism, it is impossible to say that the “errors of Russia” are a thing of the past. Much of Russia remains closed-off from the True Faith.

            This is one of many reasons why Fatima remains so central today. Until Russia is properly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Russia will not be converted and she will continue to “…spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the [Catholic]
            Church.”

            JMJ

          • A Moscow Times survey from around 2007 said 1% of the baptised population attends the Sunday liturgy.

            This compares to the Portuguese province off Alentejo where Mass attendance (even some years after Vatican II) was 97%.

            Russia has converted? Utter nonsense.

          • Lived there from 1997 to 2012 chum. Am in touch with Catholic clergy there to this day.

            Opposition to the building of churches grows; the number of Orthodox seminarians falls; more than one million HIV cases; abortion still rife.

            Ball back in your court.

          • Carlos Evaristo was the personal translator of Sr, Lucia for the English language and met her more often than any other Fatima researcher. He even filmed an interview with her. The authenticity of the content of his book was confirmed by Sr. Lucia herself and is in full accordance with what she told other visitors, among them Cardinals, and wrote in her own (uncompleted) book, published by her sisters in 2006. There are dozens of pictures of Carlos with Sr, Lucia and all her family members confirmed to me that they were very close and that he was an honest reporter. Today he works ffor the head of the Portugese Royal Family, Dom Duarte, Duke of Braganca, and owns the largest collection of relics of the three little shepherds of Fatima I have ever seen. But instead of quoting serious sources, you quote the sensationalist lies of a renegate priest, Nicholas Gruner, who muddened the water too much with his ridiculous conspiracy theories. He had, arranged by Carlos, the chance to meet Sr. Lucia once, but he did not show up and, instead of learning the truth, rather continued his (obviously lucrative) crusade of lies. What a sad story, what a fallen soul!

          • Michael Hesemann

            Read Fr. Gruner’s take on Carlos Evaristos before commenting further. I personally couldn’t care less if the Pope kissed Carlos’ feet and declared him to be a living saint. The man is a fraud and that is absolutely, indisputably clear from just that one line you quoted from him earlier “…Sr. Lucia made clear that Our Lady never promised a Russian “return to Rome” but a conversion from Communism…”

            It is an absolute falsehood bordering on blasphemy to suggest that the Blessed Virgin was more interested in regime change in Russia than in that nation’s return to the true Faith! You (and Evaristos) make Our Lady sound like Hilary Clinton!

          • Honestly, I do not care what a renegade priest and proven conspiracy theorist claims. Carlos Evaristo’s second interview with Sr .Lucia was recorded on camera and shown on Portugese national TV, so everybody can verify its content. Gruner even claimed that Sr. Lucia never owned a typewriter when her letter proved him lying and although her sisters from the Carmel of Coimbra testify that she used it regularly in two of their official publications and in spite of the photos we have of her using it.

            So in your eyes, Russian orthodox with its wonderful veneration of Icons and its great love for Our Lady is worse than atheist communism which murdered thousands of priests and religious, desecrated Churches, destroyed holy icons and persecuted faithful Christians for 71 years? Which also caused the martyrdom of Catholic priests, bishops and cardinals? Which even ordered the assassination of Saint John Paul II.?

            Obviously you don’t know about the great respect Saint John Paul II had for the orthodox faith and its many martyrs nor do you know ANYTHING about the crimes of communism, a godless ideology which killed more innocent than any other ideology in history.

            Unfortunately you are so far away from the great respect our last three Popes – Saint John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis – had and still have for the Russian Orthodox Faith, as reflected in the Joint Declaration of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of February 2016: http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/12/joint_declaration_of_pope_francis_and_patriarch_kirill/1208117

          • “Obviously you don’t know about the great respect Saint John Paul II had
            for the orthodox faith and its many martyrs nor do you know ANYTHING
            about the crimes of communism, a godless ideology which killed more
            innocent than any other ideology in history.”

            Now you truly do show yourself for what you are, a false ecumenist. The Russian Orthodox religion cannot save souls and has not had true martyrs since it separated from Rome and the true faith. God is not pleased with religions that are not in union with Rome, or have you forgotten that Catholic teaching. From the supernatural point of view, then, there is no difference between the Communists and the Orthodox in Russia, both are outside the Catholic Church that is necessary for salvation. If you dispute this then you deny the infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’. So, where do you stand on the dogma?

          • Sorry, Sir, I am not a “false ecumenist”, but I am in line with the Holy See and the Popes whether we speak of St. John Paul II, Benedict XVI or Francis who all spoke of an “ecumenism of the blood”. To quote the JOINT DECLARATION of Pope Francis and Patriarch Kirill of 12 February 2016: “12. We bow before the martyrdom of those who, at the cost of their own lives, have given witness to the truth of the Gospel, preferring death to the denial of Christ. We believe that these martyrs of our times, who belong to various Churches but who are united by their shared suffering, are a pledge of the unity of Christians. It is to you who suffer for Christ’s sake that the word of the Apostle is directed: “Beloved … rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly” (1 Pet 4:12–13).”

            I agre with “extra ecclesiam nulla salus”, but consider the orthodox Churches, which are in Apostolic succession, separated parts of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church. And the irony is that some of those who critizise me belong to schismatic or even sedisvacantist sects but dare to believe they are the only true Christians.

            Do you know that the apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary witnessed by most eyewitnesses happened over a Coptic Orthodox Church, in Zeitoun/Egypt in 1968? Hundred thousands saw it and dozens even photographed it. So you want to tell me that Our Lady does not love the orthodox Christians, too? I consider them our brothers and sisters and pray for the unity!

            And THIS is what the Joint declaration, signed by the Holy Father, states about the conversion of Russia to its traditional orthodox faith:
            “14. In affirming the foremost value of religious freedom, we give thanks to God for the current unprecedented renewal of the Christian faith in Russia, as well as in many other countries of Eastern Europe, formerly dominated for decades by atheist regimes. Today, the chains of militant atheism have been broken and in many places Christians can now freely confess their faith. Thousands of new churches have been built over the last quarter of a century, as well as hundreds of monasteries and theological institutions. Christian communities undertake notable works in the fields of charitable aid and social development, providing diversified forms of assistance to the needy. Orthodox and Catholics often work side by side. Giving witness to the values of the Gospel they attest to the existence of the shared spiritual foundations of human co–existence.”

            http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/02/12/joint_declaration_of_pope_francis_and_patriarch_kirill/1208117

          • Michael Hesemann

            “Well, Sr. Lucia made clear that Our Lady never promised a Russian
            “return to Rome” but a conversion from Communism. I really recommend you
            to read Carlos Evaristos “Two Hours with Sister Lucia””

            Please tell me that you can see the obvious falsehood in those words of Carlos Evaristos. Communism was never once mentioned by Our Lady or by Sister Lucy in her memoirs and conversations. The emphasis was on converting Russia back to the true Faith. It was to be a conversion of the supernatural order, not a conversion to Capitalism and a new economic order. Come on, you can’t be that blind! God wants souls converted to the truth for their eternal salvation. Evaristos perverts that with lies and turns it into a purely earthly political/ideological flip and you believe him? I can’t believe you fell for such an obvious demonic trick.

          • Michael Hesemann

            It must be quite obvious to you that Carlos Evaristos is a liar who contradicts Sister Lucy’s known writings and utterances over many decades. I have no intention of reading his work because I know enough about the Fatima events to know he’s not an honest writer. Besides that, the Catholic Church exists in this world for one reason and one reason only, to save souls. It is clearly ludicrous that heaven would speak of ideology conversions when conversion to the true religion is all that matters. Show me one piece of authenticated written evidence from the hand of Sister Lucy that backs up Evaristos’ tale and we’ll talk more, otherwise I’m not interested in that discredited man. Isn’t it just typical of post-conciliar Catholicism to take something which is entirely supernatural and turn it into something worldly, robbed of all supernatural content and importance. Catholics need to wake up.

          • How can Carlos Evaristo be a liar if he recorded his interview with Sr. Lucia in the presence of Cardinal Vidal ON VIDEOTAPE and broadcast it on Portugese National TV? How can he be a liar when Sr. Lucia in her own writings made the same statements he quoted? Read her biography, published by her sisters from the Carmel of Coimbra, read her own book “The Message of Fatima”, published by the Carmel of Coimbra in 2006, or just listen to her own words when she was filmed. What else do you need?

          • There is very grave speculation over all reports since Sister Lucy died because they contradict what she said in life. How do you know that the book published in her name was actually written by her? Why wasn’t it published during her lifetime? Either Sister Lucy remained unmoved in her opinions to the end, which is what all her public utterances and memoirs suggest, or she was an untrustworthy person who chopped and changed her story. I don’t believe the latter as put forward by Evaristo and yourself since her death. I believe the former. I think the rest of you are liberals going along with a liberal mindset in the Church for the sake of being portrayed as important people on Fatima. The only thing that is important to me is divine truth.

            Russia has not been consecrated and converted, Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart has not yet triumphed, there is no peace in the world and the Church is in serious crisis. These are the fruits by which I judge Fatima, not Carlos Evaristo’s testimony, not your testimony and not any contradictory testimony purporting to be from the hand or lips of Sister Lucy. You people are not telling the truth about Fatima, you’re presenting the Catholic world with a false version of Fatima and claiming the backing of the Church’s authorities in doing so. You will all have to answer to God and to Our Lady for twisting the Message and Secret of Fatima. The facts remain as they always have, nothing has changed and the world awaits the humble submission of the Pope and the bishops to Our Lady’s, as yet unfulfilled, request.

          • Her fragmentary book was published after she died since she never managed to complete it. But, once again: She made her statements in 1993, 12 years before she passed away, and it was broadcast on national Portugese TV. What more evidence you need? All your conspiracy theories have NOTHING to do with the reality and with Sister Lucias conviction. What you call “the truth about Fatima” is the sick phantasy of some fanatics who do not trust the Church, who do not trust Sr. Lucia and who don’t even trust Our Lady if she says something against your pre-set belief: “Don’t bother me with the facts, I already found my truth”. Go to Russia and you see how it converted – in the most wonderful way, just as promised by Our Lady. But you have eyes to see but don’t want to see, you have ears to listen but don’t want to listen, so you chose to ignore God’s miracle and remain ungrateful for his gift: the liberation of 300 Million Christians from an antichristian, atheist, evil dictatorship called communism!

          • You stated; “This obviously is the reason why Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that the Third Secret should be read after 1960 to be clearer understood”

            Can it be perhaps that it is more cleared understood in the light of Second Vatican Council and the dangers of altering the liturgy and morals that can now lead souls to hell with modernistic theology. (i.e would there be a possibility for papal official newspaper L”Osservatore Romano to sing praise for Maltese Bishop guidelines concerning Amoris Laetitia if there the stones weren’t set in 1962-65?)

            Why would Lucia write down the vision of hell with relative ease, and then as late John Venarri put when Lucia “wrote down the Secret in 1944, under obedience, had a very hard time doing it because of its disturbing contents. Sister Lucy’s interior conflict was so great that on January 2, 1944, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy and told her that yes, Heaven willed that she write down the Secret”?

            Do you really believe that she was bothered more by nuclear war than her vision of hell?

            “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mt 10, 28

            And for Heaven’s sake, where is the promised period of peace if 1984 consecration was valid? Should we ask the Christians in the Middle East or China if they think we are living in it now?

            Why is Heaven not holding their promise if consecration was valid? As we can recall there was no other condition for the pope and the bishops;“the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.

          • 300 million Christians freed from atheistic Communism and now given over to godless materialism. Yes, that’s some miracle!

            I’ll take it you’ve not been paying much attention to the rapid decline in Christian worship around the world, an apostasy unprecedented in history? Instead you bury your head in the sand and pretend that all is weel, Russia is converted because a particular ideology no longer dominates there. What you do, in fact, is turn the supernatural message of heaven into a purely natural political issue. That doesn’t make me a conspiracy theorists, it makes you a superficial Catholic who has never once mentioned the salvation of souls in relation to Fatima. That’s the Message, the salvation of souls, not political regime changes.

            I have noted that you keep avoiding with senseless worldly arguments the essential supernatural fruits by which we must judge the progress or otherwise of the Message and Secret of Fatima, vis. there has been no triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to date, no conversion of Russia to the true faith (the only conversion heaven is interested in), the rejection of Christianity in all Western nations (global apostasy), unprecedented confusion and loss of Faith in the Church since Vatican II, a global tidal wave of immorality, including globally-legislated “gay marriage” an evil that would have made even the pre-Christian pagans blush. These are but a few of the glaring manifestations of a world given over almost entirely to evil, and you insult Our Lady by calling this her triumph! I think the people who read our exchanges will know exactly who is and who is not being honest about Fatima. Fatima was always about “the errors of Russia”, as Sister Lucy called them, not “Russian Communism” which was just one of the many faces of those errors. Stop trying to supplant Our Lady’s supernatural message for the salvation of immortal souls with a political/humanitarian false Gospel.

          • The apostasy is a phenomenon of the WEST. You don’t find it in orthodox countries. So if we are honest, we have to ask ourselves what went wrong. There is no more godless materialism dominant in Russia, a country where three new churches are opened EVERY DAY (29.000 since 1988), where monasteries and seminaries are overcrowded by young men following their vocation. Instead of wasting our time requesting another consecration of Russia, we should better pray for the conversion of the West, of a Germany overflooded with Muslim “refugees” and where 37 % of the population are declared atheists, for example. ATHEISM, the worst heresy (according to Sr. Lucia) was defeated in Russia, where today 82 % of the population are faithful orthodox Christians with only 8 % atheists and 7 % Muslims (and 1 % Catholic, 1 % Protestant, 1 % Buddhist). Russia converted but the West lost its faith! And we are self-destroying it by adapting modernist theology and protestant heresies like the “historical-critical method” by Bultmann.

          • They are not Catholic seminaries and monasteries, which are still greatly restricted in Russia, so it’s a false Christian revival you speak of. The only Christian revival that matters is a Catholic one. You cannot hail the rise of schismatic Orthodoxy in Russia and the decline of Catholicism in the rest of the world as a miracle of Our Lady of Fatima, this is falsehood and deception.

            Incidentally, heresy is a perversion of true doctrine, such as, for example, ecumenism, which emanates not from divine charity but from pride and human respect. Atheism being a complete repudiation of God is blasphemy. I’m sure Sister Lucy knew the difference between the two, so it is unlikely that she called atheism a heresy. St. Pius X called Modernism “the synthesis of all heresies”. That’s what rules in the Church today, every previously condemned error now promoted as a revelation of Vatican II reform, “the new Pentecost”. Yes, there is much confusion and apostasy in the Church pointing every Catholic who still recognises truth to the absolute certainty that the Third Secret of Fatima is currently playing out in the Church and the world in all its apocalyptic terror.

            They look at the Church reduced to rubble in the wake of Vatican II and they call it wonderful, a new Pentecost. They look at an increasingly Godless, immoral, violent world, descending every day further and further into the abyss, and they call it a great miracle of Our Lady. And why? Because Russia no longer calls itself Communist and a schismatic sect is opening many new monateries and religious houses. It’s all so very shallow, so obviously false. It is in fact a great sin against truth and the true Faith.

          • And only you know truth and the true Faith, not the Vatican, not the Pope, not Sister Lucia, but you, Martin Blackshaw, alone. Well you do, but it’s your very private faith. It has nothing to do with the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is headed and represented by the successor of St. Peter, the Pope, alone and not by you. But in your blind arrogance you call everything a heresy or schism but your own definition of the Faith. And you blame others of falsehood and deception.. instead of finding it right when you look into your mirror!

          • The moment I read this in one of your responses I knew your work was a falsehood: “Sr. Lucia made clear that Our Lady never promised a Russian “return to Rome” but a conversion from Communism” Any Catholic with an IQ slightly higher than a house plant will see the supplanting of the spiritual with the temporal in this single false declaration.

          • We provide a rather lenient forum for discussion and debate. But we also have rules. (https://onepeterfive.wpengine.com/comment-policy/)

            Rule #1 is: “1. Refrain from personal attacks and insults; focus your response on the argument, not the individual. Do not insult 1P5 staff or writers. ”

            I have no problem with you having a disagreement with the author. But if you cannot refrain from insulting him, I’m going to have to ask you to leave.

          • If you would be good enough to highlight precise personal insults I offered to my opponent then I will be glad to review them and apologise if necessary. Vigorous and honest debate does not constitute insult. I’m sure you will agree that Mr. Hesemann has not been exactly soft on me either. Now, if you would be so kind as to highlight for me those personal insults you say I made, and please do not include in them my declarations that Mr. Hesemann’s work on Fatima is false. That is a perfectly honest assessment based on what he himself has said and written in light of hat we know to be true. Thank you in advance.

          • If you read my comment again, correctly, you will see that I was referring to those who read the ruse, not the one who wrote it. I think that is fairly self-explanatory.

            Perhaps you would like to comment yourself on this subject? It was you after all who, very imprudently in my estimation, gave Dr. Hesemann’s work a platform on your forum and then disappeared and left the rest of us to get on with trying to limit the damage. I have nothing further to add on your forum, I have said all that needs saying in accordance with my Catholic duty and fidelity to Our Lady. It’s your forum and your responsibility before God. You should seriously reflect on that grave responsibility the next time you consider introducing the work of a counter-Fatima author for consideration and discussion.

          • That only makes sense if you’re accusing Dr. Hesemann of deceit. Otherwise, you’re saying he’s a fellow believer. Either way, it’s an ad hominem.

            I’ve let you have plenty of space to stretch your legs here in the comment box. I’ve also already explained my reasoning for publishing this interview, and when I need advice on how to run my publication I’ll be sure to ask for it.

            People have the right to disagree on this matter. If we believe in the superiority of one position based on the merits of its evidence, we should hardly be afraid to subject it to scrutiny. I have lots of things I’m going to have to answer for at my particular judgment and I’m confident this isn’t one of them.

          • Steve

            I am accusing Dr. Hesemann of deceit, I want to be absolutely clear about that. The man very evidently contradicts established knowledge on Fatima, and he does so in Sister Lucy’s name after her death. He also robs the Message and Secret of its supernatural content. So yes, I do accuse him of deceit and I am not ashamed to declare it.

            As for this: “If we believe in the superiority of one position based on the merits of
            its evidence, we should hardly be afraid to subject it to scrutiny…” That’s what the Modernists said when they wanted to alter the doctrines of the faith at Vatican II and beyond. Now I know Fatima is not a doctrine of the Faith but the same principle applies. Besides, Dr. Hesemann is not scrutinising the Message and Secret of Fatima, he’s re-writing it.

            Finally, we will all have to answer at our particular judgment for many things, you are not unique in that stern reality. However, you do bear a very great responsibility, as do I as a Catholic writer, for what you place before others in the public domain. Introducing Dr. Hesemann’s work is only likely to further confuse and obscure the truth about Fatima. This debate has certainly not enlightened anyone as far as I can tell, nor has it promoted charity. So what exactly do you think you have achieved with this one? The question is rhetorical.

          • And I accuse you of spreading wild conspiracy theories and misusing Fatima as an instrument of your own hateful propaganda against the postconciliar Church and the last three Popes. You ignore every single word Sister Lucia has said since 1985, just because she would not agree with you. You just don’t care if she wrote it down with her own hand, signed it or even said it on a videotaped conversation with a Cardinal and you don’t care that at least FOUR CARDINALS testify for it. You ignore the greatest miracle of our times, the conversion of a nation of 200 million humans from atheism to the Christian faith and you are still not satisfied with God’s work because the THREE NEW CHURCHES A DAY they open in that country (29.000 since 1989) are Russian orthodox and not Catholic churches, ignoring that Our Lady is certainly far beyond all human schisms and conflicts and loves her orthodox children, too, who venerate her with so much love and devotion. The evidence that she does is that she also appeared over orthodox Churches and that the biggest mass-apparition in history happened in 1968 in Zeitoun/Egypt over a Coptic Orthodox Church. But for you, obviously, orthodoxy is worse than atheism, so you blame God and Our Lady for working the wrong miracle – the one God wanted, not the one YOU wanted.

            You blame even me for not following your ideology but trying to understand what OUR LADY said, according to Sister Lucia, yes, for even listening to Sister Lucia. And since her Carmelite Sisters, three Popes, four Cardinals, her translator Carlos Evaristo and myself all say the same, WE are the conspiracy, we are deceiving the public and ONLY YOU, who never did anything but reading Father Gruners distortions and conspiracy theories (which became your new gospel), ONLY YOU know the truth. Well, I can only pray that one day you wake up and recognize your hybris, your very own sin against the Holy Spirit and the Church and recognize the truth, which is not in your mind and phantasy, BUT ONLY in Sister Lucias words which I just – excuse me for that – JUST QUOTED!

          • Sister Lucy Betrayed

            by Christopher A. Ferrara

            Introductory Note:*

            “In the 5th Century St. Jerome was confronted with a crude tract
            written by an obscure, unlettered young man named Helvidius, who denied
            the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Although St. Jerome
            ultimately responded to Helvidius, demolishing his flimsy arguments, the
            great saint had hesitated at first, “for fear that by replying I should
            be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation.”

            The same sort of problem arises in addressing two crude pamphlets
            produced in 1992 – 1993 by one Carlos Evaristo, an obscure young man
            from Portugal who claims to have interviewed Sister Lucy on two
            different occasions in her cloistered convent. According to Evaristo,
            during these two “interviews” Sister Lucy essentially retracted
            everything she had said about the Message of Fatima during the previous
            75 years.

            For nearly five years the pamphlets were justly ignored by the
            Catholic and secular press, having been immediately exposed as bunk by
            leading Fatima experts, including renowned French “Fatimist” Frère
            François de Marie des Anges. In 1998, however, the pamphlets resurfaced
            and received considerable publicity.

            This development prompted The Fatima Crusader to commission
            the following article on Mr. Evaristo’s notorious pamphlets. Although
            we, like St. Jerome, had some concern that by replying to Mr. Evaristo
            we “should be admitting that he posed a danger demanding confutation”,
            the recent publicity for his pamphlets requires that we address the
            blatant contradictions of the Fatima Message that Evaristo has presented
            as the words of Sister Lucy.

            Has Sister Lucy repudiated all of her prior statements about the
            consecration and conversion of Russia and the Third Secret of Fatima? Or
            is Mr. Evaristo the bearer of a “new” Message of Fatima, conveniently
            revised to meet the demands of “ecumania” and the New World Order taking
            shape around us? Read the evidence and the arguments marshaled by Mr.
            Ferrara and decide for yourself.

            * By the Editor of The Fatima Crusader

            Introduction

            This article presents a detailed discussion and analysis of two
            purported “interviews” with Sister Lucia de Jesus (known to Catholics as
            Sister Lucy), the last surviving seer of the apparitions of Our Lady of
            Fatima, who now lives as a cloistered nun in the Carmelite convent at
            Coimbra, Portugal. The purported interviews were allegedly conducted at
            the convent on October 11, 1992 and October 11, 1993 by one Carlos
            Evaristo, a self-styled “journalist, historian and interpreter.”

            Evaristo has published the interviews in the form of two pamphlets, entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy and It All Started with Two Hours with Sister Lucy.
            The pamphlets have ignited tremendous controversy because in them
            Sister Lucy is reported as having flatly contradicted a whole series of
            statements she had made over the previous 75 years regarding the Message
            of Fatima and its implications for the Church and the world.

            Before discussing the purported interviews in detail, it would be
            best to summarize the circumstances which surrounded their production
            and publication.

            The Original Pamphlet

            On October 11, 1992, Carlos Evaristo emerged from the famous convent
            in Coimbra, Portugal, to make an amazing claim: that he had just spent
            two hours interviewing Sister Lucy, and that during this “interview” she
            had contradicted all of her public and private statements over the past 75 years
            concerning the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary,
            the conversion of Russia, and the Third Secret of Fatima.

            According to Evaristo, the “new” Sister Lucy, contrary to everything
            she had said in some 75 years worth of prior correspondence,
            conversations and published remarks, was now saying that Russia
            had been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary (in 1984), that
            Russia is “converting”, that “conversion” does not mean embracing the
            Catholic faith, and that the Third Secret of Fatima was not meant to be
            revealed to the faithful in 1960.

            Evaristo would soon publish this first “interview” in the form of a crudely produced pamphlet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy.
            The credibility of the pamphlet was immediately cast into doubt by a
            manifestly absurd “detail” with which Evaristo embellished his account:

            “Carlos Evaristo, who was sitting closest to Sister Lucy and directly in front, held Sister Lucy’s hands for most of the two hour interview.”1

            Sister Lucy is a cloistered nun who is not even permitted to see her
            blood relatives alone. The claim that she held hands for two hours with a
            strange man she had never met before was laughable on its face and
            impossible to believe.

            Equally impossible to believe was the “interview” as a whole. In
            fact, it was so unbelievable that the only other Portuguese-speaking
            witness to Evaristo’s alleged encounter with “Sister Lucy”, Father
            Francisco Pacheco (who is a lawyer as well as a priest), publicly
            disavowed the pamphlet in its entirety:

            “I was the official translator of this meeting, which lasted two hours. I categorically affirm that the booklet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed. When I was first shown a copy in January 1993, I immediately contacted Carlos Evaristo and I personally told him not to publish this booklet because of the gross lies that he had put in it … I trust that this will end the confusion caused by Carlos Evaristo and his notorious pamphlet.”2…”

            The rest of the truth about Carlos Evaristo can be read here: http://www.fatima.org/books/divimp/divimpap3.asp

          • If you take Gruners wild claims serious, I can only feel sorry for you. “Unfortunately” Carlos Evaristo’s interview with Sr. Lucia, in the presence of Cardinal Vidal, was videotaped and broadcast on Portugese national TV. Gruner was offered to meet Sr. Lucia to learn from her how wrong he was, but he just did not show up at the appointed time. Later, he claimed that Sr. Lucia was an imposter, replaced by the evil Vatican, an idea obviously inspired by his cultist, sedisvacantist friends from Bayside/NY. So you call orthodox Russia schismatic, but follow Fr. Gruner? How absurd can it get? Either you are with the Pope or you are more schismatic than any Russian, since you follow not a tradition but willingly decided to disobey the successor of St. Peter, TODAY.

          • You have clearly refused to read the article I linked, an article that would quickly change the mind of anyone of good will in the matter of the fake Carlos. This tells me that you are definitely not of good will. I urge all others followers on this forum to read the linked article in its entirety. It utterly destroys the falsehoods put out by Carlos Evaristo and his supporters.

          • Fr. Pacheco, a Brazilian, was the translator brought by the Indian delegation but was refused by Sr. Lucia, because Brazilian portugese and original Portugese is like British and American English – in writing the same language, but pronounced often in a different way, so she just had trouble understanding his heavy accent and he felt bad because of it. This explains his desire to justify himself and to discredit Sr. Lucia’s translator, Carlos Evaristo, whose family was very close to Sr. Lucia’s family long before. Indeed, the article only referred to the first interview of 1992. Because of this criticism, Carlos decided to ask Sr. Lucia to VIDEOTAPE the second interview a year later and she agreed, In this videotaped interview she repeats ON CAMERA everything she was quoted to say a year before. So if you accuse Carlos of falsehood, lies and deception, how do you explain that Sr. Lucia said the very same a year later on camera, as well as 8 years later when Cardinal Bertone interviewed her?

          • Evidence please of the videotaped interview with Sister Lucy. A YouTube or other video link will be fine. Thank you.

            My understanding is that it has been spoken of as existing for many years but never been brought into the public domain, which strongly suggests that it does not in fact exist.

            As for Cardinal Bertone’s claim, well, let’s just say it can’t be verified and His Eminence has something of a history when it comes to Fatima. You’ll need to do a lot better than Cardinal Berone and Carlos Evaristo if you are to convince Catholics that Sister Lucy repudiated and reversed everything she had said and insisted upon for 75 years. As I said before, your argument is specious which is why you refuse to read the evidence I linked and cannot prove the claim you make that there was a videotaped interview with Sister Lucy. That false claim was debunked years ago.

          • None of this is true, as well you know. But to prove the fact I challenge you to produce here a link to the Portugese broadcast you say contains an interview with Sister Lucy and Carlos Evaristo. If it was videotaped, as you say, then it must be available on the Internet somewhere. So, over to you to prove your claim. Good luck with that one!

          • “You ignore the greatest miracle of our times, the conversion of a nation of 200 million humans from atheism to the Christian faith”.

            But that hasn’t happened.

          • Today, on the plane to Rome, I read this beautiful coment by Dr. Robert Moynihan, editor of “Inside the Vatican” Magazine and one of the best American Vatican experts, on the conversion of Russia. It answers your rather ignorant comment better than anything else:

            “Many in the West (and many even in Russia), have expressed grave doubts about an alleged “spiritual revival” in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 — 26 years ago.

            They say the revival is in some way fraudulent, a fake, sponsored by a cynical, un-believing state power (the post-Soviet government now led by former KGB-chief Vladimir Putin). The Russian state is alleged to believe that it can use the appearance of a revival of religious faith for its own sinister purposes.

            Are the doubters correct?

            Is the religious renewal of Russia, the construction of an average of three churches a day for the past 26 years, somehow a fraud, a fake?

            I have argued for 18 years, since 1999, that the revival, the renewal, of religious faith in Russia is profoundly authentic.

            At the same time I perceive the force of the counter-arguments, and the heavy weight of the counter-evidence, ranging from the widespread recourse to abortion to the embrace by many younger Russians of Western secular, “post-Christian” values.

            Into the midst of this debate come the relics of St. Nicholas.

            And the reaction of the Russian people to the relics is, to me, an additional piece of evidence in a large mosaic suggesting that the return to religious faith in Russia is real, though occurring under the profound weight of both the Soviet (1917-1991) and post-Soviet (1991-present) time.

            A Gentle Breeze

            I sat in an unstable motorboat sailing across the wide Volga River near Kazan in 2001 to visit an island where hundreds of Christians had been executed. All that remained was a field of grass.

            I saw the return to Russia of the holy icon of Kazan, in August 2004, after it had been kept for 11 years in the private chambers of Pope John Paul II, who wished to carry it back to Russia himself, but was unable to.

            I saw the building of a cathedral in Kazan which stands where there was once a tobacco factory.

            I saw the return to Russia of the mortal remains of St. Elizabeth Federovna (whose sister was the Empress Alexandra, the wife of the last Tsar), from the Garden of Gethsemane, also in 2004. She was executed by the Bolsheviks in 1918, on the day after her sister, her husband and five children were also executed.

            I saw a Russian choir come to Rome in 2007 to sing of the passion of Jesus Christ on a stage where the entire back wall was an enormous icon of Christ.

            I saw the same choir come to America in 2007 in December to sing of the birth of Jesus Christ at Christmastime. They sang in the Catholic National Shrine in Washington, in a church in New York, and in Memorial Chapel at Harvard in Cambridge — in the same Harvard Yard where Alexander Solzhenitsyn gave the Commencement Address in 1978.

            I saw the Italian laywoman, Immacolata Solaro del Borgo, carry relics of saints to Kazan in 2009, despite old age and many physical ailments, surrounded by hundreds of ordinary Russians, some of whom wept as they saw her pass by carrying her gifts.

            I have watched as dozens and hundreds of young scholars have begun to study in the new theological academies of the Russian Orthodox Church.

            And I have listened as many Russian believers have expressed their concern that the West has abandoned the faith we once held as our most precious treasure.

            The silent dignity of the Russian people as they venerate the relics of St. Nicholas moves me deeply.”

          • “The apostasy is a phenomenon of the WEST. You don’t find it in orthodox countries.”

            More nonsense. The vast majority of Russians don’t go near a church, ever.

          • Listen matey, I lived there for around thirteen and a half years. You’ve been a tourist in Red Square, right?

            About 1% of non-Moslem, non-atheist, non-Shamanist, non-Buddhist Russians go to the Sunday liturgy. ONE percent. And Russia is a “Christian country”?

          • Just not true. Here are the figures from 2008: 72 % of the Russians defined themselves as “Orthodox Christians” (today: 82 %), 7 % of the Russians go to church AT LEAST once a month, which is 10 % of the Orthodox and equals the figures from Western Europe. At the same time you can tead that 56 % of all Russians (what means at that time 2/3rd of all Orthodox attend Church services at least once a year and 21 % or 30 % of the Orthodox several times a year, what means on the Feasts, The reason wre twofold. First of all, they open 3 churches a day but Russian orthodox churches are traditionally small. When 200 people are in, they are crowded. So the 29.000 new churches they have since 1988 are not enough. Then, they normally have ONE liturgy each sunday, beginning at 8 AM, lasting 3 hrs. They have no seats in their churches, you stand and you just listen, as long as you don’t belong to the choir. This is quite a challenge for the ordinary man, and there is no duty to go every sunday, sas we Catholics have it. So most Russians go to Church regularly to pray, light up some candles, venerate the icons and participate in the liturgy on the feasts only. Do you want to reform their liturgy, offering shorter liturgy, seats and evening masses? Would be popular, I am sure. But the Orthodox are very traditional.
            Still, the attendance more than tripled between 1991 and 2008, from 2 % to 7 %. The number of orthodox Christians went up from 31 to 72 % (today 82). The number of atheists declined from 61 % down to 18 % (today: 8 %), the number of those who never go to Church from 83 to 39 %, which INCLUDES the 28 % non-Orthodox, Is this a conversion? You can bet so! Does it mean that everyone has the discipline to get up at 6 AM on a Sunday to stand in an overcrowded Church for three hours to participate in the liturgy? Obviously not necessarily. But, once again, weekly Church attendance is no duty in orthodoxy!

            http://www.pewforum.org/2014/02/10/russians-return-to-religion-but-not-to-church/

          • There has been no conversion.

            All you have had since 1991 is the religion that was kept by the majority but silently, culturally, through the decades of atheism is now free to show itself.

            That’s all Dr. Hesemann.

          • First of all, that’s just not true, read the statistics I quoted. 61 % were atheists in 1991, when there already was religious freedom in Russia, and the number steadily went down to 18 % in 2008 and 8 % today. Second, Our Lady spoke of the conversion of Russia, not of the Russians. And the state doctrine of the USSR was atheist communism, when the state doctrine of Putin’s Russia is Russian orthodoxy. The state that once suppressed the Christian religion now supports it in every possible way.

          • ” … the state doctrine of Putin’s Russia is Russian orthodoxy. ”

            You know absolutely nothing about Russia.

            The state doctrine of Putin’s Russia is the survival of Russia, that and that alone, nothing else. Insofar as Orthodoxy supports that, the State will support the Church. The elite know the country’s going down the toilet so all they want is to maintain their grip on the resources and the money it produces.

            You are very naive at the least.

          • TGS-

            I confess I find your assessment of Russia both depressing and bewildering. I don’t doubt either your knowledge or your intentions….but still. Has Russia not reversed its population decline? Has it not outlawed homosexual propaganda? Is it not the only nation of any significance whose leaders openly embrace a Christian faith?

            More to the point–is it not the only nation in the world that seems not to be under the absolute domination of Jews and Freemasons, which explains the implacable hostility of western liberals and the media towards it?

            Russia may be a basket case, as are all nations in the world today. But it appears to be the only basket case that is beginning to take its cure and emerge from the insanity.

            What am I missing?

          • Fatimist, I have worried for a long time at the sheer ignorance of Russia shown by Traditionalists who WANT Russia to be the great saviour of the West. It’s mostly Americans – but not only – and the phenomenon is based purely on wishful thinking and a great deal of ignorance.

            Hesemann has now revealed himself in his post above: he is an unthinking Russophile who believes the Ukrainian uprising against utterly corrupt Russian puppets is an “extreme-right-wing government” waging war against peaceable Russians. The truth of course is entirely the other way around.

            All Russia has done on the queer front is enact a (good) law that prohibits sodomites and their ilk from promoting homosexuality to minors, thus “gay parades” are banned. What are not banned are gay clubs or homosexuality itself.

            On the population front, the only increase in population over the last twenty years has been in a return to Russia of Russians from the former Soviet Central Asian and Caucasian Republics. But that has been offset by deaths caused by the catastrophic collapse in health care, from despair and disease (more than one million AIDS cases, drugs, alcoholism). The up-tick in births is not at natural replacement rates. So Russia is slowly dying, and I do not like having to say it.

            Yes, there HAS been a public manifestation of the Orthodox culture which has been one thousand years in the nation, but I am convinced it is more or less only the vestiges of the Christian Faith that even militant state atheism could not kill. Remember that even in Communist times, there were more believers than there were Party members.

            So to talk of a great Christian revival is simply untrue.

            Hesemann is at least bull-headed enough to have plainly shown his biases. He is a pro-Russian, anti-Ukrainian nationalist. Well, Germans can;t be nationalists in their own country, so Hesemann has adopted Russia. Maybe his father or grandfather fought there and he feels guilty, I don’t know.

            I am married to a Russian, I speak Russian. I love Russia. And I hate and despise it at the same time. And that is the reality of Russia. Barbaric yet noble; heroic yet cruel.

            Finally, as far as the Masons and Jews are concerned: Masonry has been in Russia ffor a very long time. And if you ask any average Russian about the Jews, he will tell you that they control his country. Judging by the huge preponderance of Jews among the “oligarch” class, he would be right.

          • Why do you suppose that Jews and Freemasons hate Russia so much, TGS? It is quite evident that Russia is the full focus of their hate at the moment.

            I’m really curious as to your thoughts on this.

          • A Fatimist

            I will permit TGS to answer the question you put to him personally, but if you don’t mind I would like to interject my own opinion for your consideration. It has long been a tactic of the enemies of the Church, and indeed of mankind, to raise tensions between two apparently opposed ideologies which are nevertheless both controlled by them. In other words, it’s a ruse to make people think they are choosing good over evil when in fact the choice is one puppet regime or the other.

            What do I mean by this? Well, consider Communism versus Capitalism, or Western domocracy, as they like to call it today. Now Communism is renowned for its hatred and suppression of religion, particularly Christianity, and for enslaving its people in relative poverty in a police State. The latter, on the other hand, claims to be quite the opposite engendering a free voting system, religious liberty and a market economy. But look at the aggressive atheism that controls our Western nations; legislating against the laws of God in favour of homosexuality, abortion, divorce, usury. etc., etc. It’s exactly the same hatred of God and rejection of His Divine Law that you will find in any Communist State, only it is imposed in the name of freedom and human rights.

            Nor are people free to choose their government, which is patently obvious right now with the media and Democrat obscruction of the Trump Administration. We saw the same thing play out recently in France and I can tell you that it is on-going in Britain in a bid to halt and/or disrupt the Brexit decision of the electorate. In all cases the corporate-owned media feeds the masses with perpetual liberal propoganda with a view to manipulating the minds of the greater majority of the uninformed public.

            Russia has once again been declared the bogeyman of the world, the aggressor against freedom. Yet, it was the West that first invaded the sovereign nations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya without justification; toppling the moderate leaders of those nations, destroying their infrastructure and killing tens of thousands of innocents along the way. These countries have gone from ordered, peaceful States to lawless breeding grounds of Islamic Terrorism and an unprecedented exodus of migrants. Putin stepped in to halt the process in Syria and for that he’s a tyrant and a friend of evil butchers. The real truth is that both factions, the West and Russia, are equally atheistic, equally aggressive and equally driven to lead the New World Order, an order without God or true freedom for the masses. They are both controlled by the same enemies of God who use them one against the other towards the same final end.

          • Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Martin.

            I am familiar with the false dialectic the left has established–“muh Democracy” vs. left totalitarianism, both purely materialistic and deracinated. In my opinion, that does not fully explain the current Russian phenomenon.

            Russia stands on the margins of the globalist framework. It is under US sanctions, and it is at a serious disadvantage in the global trade framework. It has no significant exports (apart from energy-see below), and it is an insignificant import market. The only reason it seems to be tolerated is due to:

            a) its nuclear arsenal and powerful conventional military, and
            b) its vast stores of natural gas, which keep the lights and furnaces on in Europe.

            Even this is proving to be an insufficient deterrent, as Western leaders continually provoke Russia, meddle in its neighbors’ affairs, and take aggressive actions against it and its client states. The gambit appears to be that Russia will not respond with overwhelming military force but will instead allow the West to slowly eat it alive. We will see if that assumption holds.

            To me, the antipathy against Russia in the US and Western Europe, which does not originate organically from the people but rather from the media and political elites, appears to be rooted in fear–specifically fear that it represents a viable alternative to the chaotic, borderless, degenerate mode of Western liberalism. Russia is fundamentally a fascist state in the sense that everything is subservient to the interests of the state. Unlike communism, which was always doomed to fail, fascism is actually quite productive and healthy. Fascist Russia has managed to reverse its population decline, rebuild its cities, wrest a measure of independence from globalist bankers and plunderers, and begin to re-assert a sense of national pride. Fascist states must never be permitted to succeed lest Western populations begin to take note of their success.

            I will certainly defer to TGS when it comes to affairs “on the ground” in Russia. I have no doubt that it is a mess. Germany in 1931 was a mess as well. Less than a decade later, it was the most powerful, wealthy, and unified nation on Earth, which was why it had to be destroyed. The globalists think long-term. Consider the trajectory Russia is on and where it was just 20-30 years ago. 3 generations of Russians had lived under the most miserable conditions ever conceived in this Valley of Tears. People were literally starving in the streets and drinking themselves to death. Now consider where Russia might be in, say, another 20-30 years if Putin’s programme of national restoration is successful. There could be a stable middle class, a revitalized Orthodox faith, and a society of people who do not see themselves as atomized individuals but as part of a true NATION, all outside the sphere of homosexualism, officially-sanctioned degeneracy, and international usury.

            THIS is what the Globalists fear most: a robust, nationalist state feeding its people and asserting itself independent of the Western liberal consensus.

          • Thank you for your insightful response.

            I agree with much of what you say as regards the polarisation of a Fascist-like Russia by an equally totalitarian liberal West. There is an end game planned for this stand off that we’re not seeing clearly at present. It may sound a bit crazy but it seems to me that it may be global war. Was it Lenin who said that three world wars would be required to establish Communism (read atheistic materialism) in the world. The first to establish it in Russia (1914-18), the second in Europe (1939-45) and the third in the entire world. I can’t be certain if it was Lenin who said that, pretty sure it was though.

            I guess most people would laugh at the idea that a global elite would sit down and plan these things, but those who understand the Message and Secret of Fatima can easily see that while the battles may be terrestrial, the war is supernatural and the prize is immortal souls.

            There really isn’t much evidence of a rivival of Russian Orthodoxy, as TGS has amply demonstrated. In everyday Russia there appears to be little or no interest in religion amongst the general population. And as has also been pointed out, Russia can hardly be considered anti-homosexual. That lifestyle is very much tolerated in Russia provided homosexual activists refrain from public marches and stay away from schools. But even this apparent good by the Russian government belies another fact. Fr. Fortunata di Noto, an Italian priest whose METER Association tracks and reports child sexual abuse webistes around the world stated a few years ago that 99% of domains hosting child sexual abuse in Western countries are situated in Russia. That’s quite an astounding percentage for a country apparently so concerned for the morals of young people. For me, it’s all smoke and mirrors to give the impression of two ideologies at odds with each other. The truth is that neither is godly or moral.

            How will it end? Well, Our Lady promised that her Immaculate Heart will triumph, though it will be late. I think this may mean that the Pope and the bishops of the world will finally be obliged to recognise, by some kind of tragic development, that only she can save the world from utter destruction. This will force them to their knees in supplication, all human respect and false ecumenism now seen for what it is. At any rate I foresee a dramtic conclusion, and in the not too distant future. Many prophecies and present events definitely seem to point to such a climax and the sudden triumph of Our Lady. I sure hope so.

          • I agree with much of what you wrote.

            The only thing I would say is that it is no small thing that Russia (and other Eastern European nations) are openly defying the homosexualist hierarchs of the West, even if their opposition is somewhat limited. It is simply inconceivable that any western nation would jail homosexual activists or prohibit homosexual propaganda. Western nations have all but enshrined “homosexualite” alongside the 3 cardinal virtues of Revolution (liberte, egalite, and fraternite).

            Nor is it insignificant that Putin is increasingly justifying his foreign policy moves on the basis of Orthodoxy.

            Critics will say, perhaps correctly, that this is merely cynical manipulation on Putin’s part. I say, “at least it is cynical manipulation in the correct direction!” Whether he realizes it or not, Putin is unleashing forces in his country that have the potential to overwhelm the Marxized west.

            Perhaps Putin does not fully understand this. All the better. All the more evidence that Our Lady is at work in Russia and that in the end, her Immaculate Heart will triumph.

          • It is said, and rightly so, that appearances can be deceptive, they usually are. It was not uncommon, for example, for the Communist leaders of the old USSR in Moscow, to relent for a time on their persecution of Christians when they had an objective in mind and were courting the favour of the Christian West at that time. Of course the persecution started again the moment that objective was met. Stalin, for instance, lessened the persecution of Christians during the war, lest he lose the support of the allied forces. It should also be borne in mind that Russia was originally at the forefront in championing religious liberty and ecumenism while it hypoctitically persecuted religion within its own borders. The reason was simple, religious liberty and ecumenism in the West, should it take hold, would result in religious indifference amongst the masses. That particular tactic was spectacularly successful, as we see today in an ecumenical world lost to divine truth and the supernatural end of man. Ecumenism is the stepping stone to apostasy. So said the Popes before Vatican II, and so it has proved. The point I’m making is that Russian leaders are not opposed to a little religious performance or two if it serves their purpose.

            I don’t think there is any real evidence to show that Putin is by any standards a religious man, nor indeed that Russia is in the process of a religious revival. I think there is now a certain freedom permitted to religion, primarily to the Russian Orthodox whose clerics once had to be members of the Communist Party and tools of the KGB if they wished to remain in existence. I don’t believe there is any real evidence either that Putin is anti-homosexual in the sense that is portrayed. Russia has many public homosexuals and homosexual meeting places, it’s not banned in Russia. If you ask me the message they are trying to put out is that Russia stands as a nation of tough men against an increasingly effeminate West. It all fits in with Putin’s nationalist vision for Russia and it wins him no few Western friends, who remain anti-homosexual despite government capitulation tot he lavender mafia. It also wins him the favour of Muslim countries, which tend to be very severe on homosexuality, to the eternal shame of the once-Christian West.

          • “Germany in 1931 was a mess as well. Less than a decade later, it was the most powerful, wealthy, and unified nation on Earth, which was why it had to be destroyed. ”

            Fatimist, forgive me but this is plain historical nonsense. No-one was planning to “destroy” Germany before Hitler showed himself to be a demoniacal threat to everyone. Which he indeed was.

            Please note that Alexander Dugin has called the SS “the ideal society”. He is a madman, infected by Nazism and a millinarist view of Orthodox prophecy.

            Please, please do not play with these people. They deserve no praise or empathy at all.

          • GDP per capita figures from 1939:

            (1) United States: 649
            (2) Germany: 590
            (3) UK: 579
            (4) USSR: 138
            (5) France: 385
            (6) Italy: 200
            (7) Japan: 104

            Quite a turnaround in the span of a decade. Imagine….Germany was able to accomplish this without the “assistance” of international bankers, without a global empire, and under the strain of war debts to the Allied powers.

            Throughout the 1930’s, the drunkard and war criminal Churchill rallied for war against Germany. He was financed by a group of bankers and industrymen who had this as their aim. In the leadup to war and in the early years of the conflict, he instructed his diplomats to *refuse to receive* any German envoy, knowing well that Hitler had instructed von Ribbentrop to submit a generous peace offer. He forbade the British press from publishing the terms of this offer.

            Frankly, Churchill better fits the profile of a “madman” who is “intent on killing everyone” than his counterpart.

            Hitler had no interest in war with Britain or France. His interest was in uniting all the Germans and, to some extent, dealing with Russia. Nazism itself was a response to the excesses of the Jewish and Freemasonic-dominated Weimar Republic, which closely resembles our own era in its celebration of homosexuality and every manner of degeneracy.

            I am not allying myself with Dugin, but I do believe that Russia has the right to defend itself against the infection of Atlanticist democracy and degeneracy. The United States, Britain, and our allies are like a bacterial infection upon the world at the moment. All we do is weaken traditional societies and excrete a constant stream of filth.

            Every aspect of our society is rooted in Enlightenment errors, themselves the fruit of Luther’s demonic revolution against the Church.

            If we don’t turn from our ways, surely we will suffer God’s just punishment, as foretold by Our Lady and by St. John in his Apocalypse.

          • TGS-

            Did you read my post? I said explicitly that I don’t hold with Dugin and his 4th theory.

            I posted some facts proving that Germany had emerged from its enslavement to be the wealthiest european power by 1939. These are not in dispute. Nor is the fact that Hitler and von Ribbentrop repeatedly sued for peace with Britain, only to be rebuffed by the drunken lout Churchill. This was also true of the Kaiser in WWI (not to mention the Pope!). Unfortuntaely, the response from the Protestant democrats in both cases was: “Unconditional surrender or nothing!” This cannot be squared with the Thomistic theory of just war or jus post bellum.

            For the sake of clarity, my views are that I prefer Catholic monarchy above all other forms of government. Since we have been deprived of that for all time, I suppose you might call me a Catholic fascist, in the mode of Salazar, Pinochet, or Franco. My form of Catholic fascism does not share the racialist overlay of German National Socialism, an overlay that was, as Julius Evola noted, entirely extrinsic to the system of fascism itself.

            In the west, the word “fascism” has of course been imbued by Hollywood with the spookiest and most cartoonish overtones. One cannot in polite company confess to being a fascist. And yet, when I look at what the fascist governments of the mid-20th century were able to accomplish and the circumstances they faced, it is hard to argue that a measure of fascism would not be beneficial to the west.

            If you find these views a “disgrace,” so be it. I find Protestantism, liberal democracy, egalitarianism, globalism and leftism not only disgusting but outright Satanic. I believe I have the weight of history and traditional Catholic theology on my side in this.

            Are we really so far apart, you and I? I find that difficult to believe, having read hundreds if not thousands of your posts on Disqus.

          • Dear Fatimist, having read your very interesting exchange with Martin above, I should apologise to you for snapping at you last evening re Germany. It was late, I was tired – not a good time to be commenting. You ask here some more than interesting questions. I have no claim to any expertise as far as political thought goes … but here are my initial reactions, for what they’re worth.

            I don’t like the use of the title “fascism” for your ideal modern system of governance. It is linked to Italy and to one man, Mussolini (in whose government a member of my family served as a very senior official). Fascism I would define more or less as a militaristic, nationalistic force which may be sympathetic to Catholicism (Italy, Spain) but equally may be insanely hostile to it (Germany). Nationalism is a condemned ideology – if not a heresy. The roots of classic fascism do not spring from the Faith so I am more than suspicious of it.

            I am very sympathetic though to the Portugal of Salazar (still to this day the most popular man in Portugal, some forty-five years after his death). This was a society rescued by a brilliant man from the chaos produced by fifteen years of overtly Masonic government, who then proceeded to build a State explicitly Catholic with its social contract based on Leo XIII’s great Encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’. It was a benevolent but non-democratic system imbued with values drawn directly from the Catholic Faith.

            So I would say that my view is that, failing the return to Traditional Catholicism of Europe’s royal families and the wholesale rejection of liberal-left democracy by the nations of Europe (both in human terms an impossibility), my preferred alternative would be ANY form of government (direct vote democracy to more or less benevolent dictatorship a la Russia) which is built upon Catholic foundations and explicitly claims to be so. The Church has traditionally been able to work with virtually any form of government, as long as it is not outright tyranny and the Church is free to preach the Gospel.

            I do agree that liberal democracy is running out of steam (as its peoples’ Christian faith disappears; the two are of course linked) and swiftly appears to be descending into anarchy as morals collapse amid an Islamic invasion. What will come out of it? I doubt it will be monarchical government. It might well be dictatorship: as long as it is Catholic, I will be able to live with it.

          • TGS-

            No worries, my friend. I have come to cherish your insights and your good humor, so it pleases me that we are, as I suspected, more in agreement than disagreement. And of course, even if we disagree, it will be a disagreement between friends and brothers in Christ.

            There seems to be a growing consensus among traditionalists that liberal democracy is a spiritual and political dead end. Far from the “end of history,” it increasingly appears to be an interruption in the normal course of human affairs.

            My hope is that we Catholics can begin to imagine a future in which we are not merely “left alone” by the State but can work in partnership with it for the betterment of the world and the glory of Christ. This was after all the state of affairs in Christendom for over 1,000 years. I do fear for our future if we cannot overthrow the egalitarian tyranny of liberal democracy, which marginalizes faith and treats the Church as a glorified NGO.

          • “Putin stepped in to halt the process in Syria ..”.

            No. Putin stepped in to protect Russia’s massive investments in Assad’s Syria, to protect Russia’s southern flank and to ensure continued access to the Russian Navy’s only warm water port abroad.

            What you say about the liberal media is of course correct, but your analysis is far too laboured and coloured by your own position.

            Reality in this world is governed by self-interest and pragmatism.

          • TGS,

            The “I will permit” introdcution was intended as a polite way of saying that my comment should not to be taken as jumping in to answer on your behalf, as though you could not answer for yourself. I regret that you took it as an insult, I was attempting to be good mannered.

            As for the rest of your comment. If you believe that the geopolitical crisis that exists in the Middle East, not to mention the rest of the world, right now is little more than a product of self-interest and pragmatism then you are very naive indeed. The battle being waged today all over the world between competing godless forces is the result of much more than just human weakness. Sister Lucy stated that Our Lady made it clear to her that we are living in the “last times” of the world, the apocalyptic age. She even indicated Apocalypse chapters 8-13 as encapsulating the chastisement of the Third Secret. So no, my comment, however laboured, is not coloured by my “position”. The only “position” I have is the position of the Church and the predicitons of the approved prophecies, which we see unfolding before us. Fatima leaves us in no doubt that what has been happeneing in the world these past decades, both materially and spiritually, is about much more than self-interest and pragmatism. It’s “The Devil’s Final Battle” for souls. You need to look beyond the superficial to the supernatural.

          • But your position IS superficial. I note how you dismissed Syria in one phrase without answering my explanation of Russia’s involvement there, and swiftly moved on to a rant against the world battle going on a la Fr. Kramer and his “Devil’s Final Battle” scenario.

            I am not saying you are definitely incorrect. But I do say that your world-view is pre-formed and does not actually take into account the competition and conflict between nations that that always characterised our fallen world, and will always do so. Your whole approach here is a little bit aggressive and rather strained in tone. That makes me suspicious of the rather narrow views you hold. Human affairs are rather more straight-forward than you appear to imagine.

            Those views appear to lead you to place Putin and Russia on the side of Heaven, battling manfully against the (undoubted) evil (mixed with incompetence – do not discount its role in history!) of the West. Well, if you think that, you are miles off the mark.

          • TGS

            “Your whole approach here is a little bit aggressive and rather strident in tone.” This statement perplexes me as I have in fact made no aggressive remarks to you. If by “strident” you mean forthright, then yes, my comments are strident. That does not make them “suspicious”.

            I think we can both agree on the human face of the present conflicts, the failings of men are always the channel for the devil’s manouvres. The point I was making, and will always make in accordance with what Our Lady said at Fatima and what Sister Lucy continued to repeat, is that ultimately, depsite the human face we put to the unprecedented geopolitical events presently unfolding, there is the unseen supernatural battle for souls reserved for “the last times”, as Sister Lucy described this era.

            I can’t quite figure out how you came to assume that I was portraying Putin and Russia as heros in this drama, especially since I made it clear several times that the fight against homosexuality in Russia is superficial, as is the so-called Russian Orthodox revival. I also went out of my way to describe all nations presently in conflict with each other as “godless”, including Russia, and I said that I did not consider Putin to be by any means a religious man. So you have clearly not properly understood my comments.

            Nor did I indicate by my comments that the free will of men is somehow suspended in this supernatural warfare. We are all responsible for our actions before God precisely because we do have free will. My point was that many of today’s world leaders have chosen by their own free will to commit to evil rather than good. This is clearly evident in their individual national legislative endorsement of immoral practices that “cry out to heaven for vengeance”, an unprecedented embracing of evil practices such as the world has never seen, and which would have made even the old pagans blush with shame. It’s what St. Paul lamented as “using liberty as a cloak for malice”. I hope that sets the record straight for you.

            Concerning my reference to “The Devil’s Final Battle”, this was in fact a reference to what Sister Lucy described. It was not a reference to Fr. Paul Kramer’s book, even if I did use its title. I have never read Fr. Kramer’s book because of his tragic drift into schismatic bitter zeal. I think Fr. Kramer did a great dis-service to Fr. Gruner, to Our Lady, to the cause of Tradition and to himself by allowing anger and resentment to take hold in his soul. I have debated this with him many times and have warned others that they should avoid him. I hope that clears up the matter of Fr. Kramer.

            The ultimate reality is this: we live in unprecedented times in which Christ the King has been dethroned in all the once-Christian nations, which are now given up to aggressive atheism and immoraltiy. This, I believe from Our Lady’s Message, has spread out from Russia, even to the point of having infected the Church, which has fallen silent on evil and sin, preaching instead appeasement with the enemies of God, including the false religions. It began with Vatican II when it was agreed with Atheistic Russia that Communism should no longer be condemned by the Holy See for the demonic evil it truly is. Things went downhill from there. It is, as I said, a supernatural battle between Our Lady and the godless forces subservient to Satan, forces now dominant on earth. This is about much more than just the failings of men, or do you reject the Church’s teaching on the aims of the secret societies given over to Satan?

            At any rate I see that I am irritating you with my observations, which was not the intention. As Catholics we have a duty to maintain charity in our exchanges, especially in public. I will therefore remove myself from the discussion in order not to irritate you further. Better not to exchange views than to exchange them with hostility. I agree with a lot of what you say in respect to the human face of present cnflicts, but we will clearly not agree on my observation (from Sister Lucy’s own words) that the battle is about much more than human geopolitics and earthly ends. I apologise profoundly for any unintended offence I may have given in the course of this exchange.

          • CT or here Martin – you are often strident, and not only. “Forthright” is a favourite word, isn’t it? All too often it translates as “bloody rude”. A pity.

          • TGS

            As a Glaswegian with a certain cultural impulse for telling it how it is, I suppose the only defence I can offer is that Our Lord was considered “bloody rude” when He overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple. I guess in these days of sensitivity the forthright approach is considered more rude than honest. It is, as you rightly say, a pity. I am not aware, however, of having written anything that was directly insulting or rude in my comments to you, not consciously at any rate, so I can only apologise again if anything I wrote appeared to you as an insult to your intellect. I have appreciated many of your wise observations relating to current world events. We have merely disagreed on whether or not there is a greater supernatural relevance to them.

            I conclude by announcing that I am no saint. I have many flaws and many occasions to seriously reflect on my opinions and comments, lest at any time pride takes hold to the detriment of truth and charity. Consequently, I accept with gratitude any and all fraternal correction of factual errors or personal conduct in my exchanges. I ask only that such correction be administered patiently and politely as befits our Christian duty.

          • fwiw, I don’t think you have been rude or uncharitable.. TGS is ordinarily thicker skinned than this.

            it is possible he is under some kind of stress or that the usual internet confusion around tone is in play….

            regardless, I have enjoyed reading the exchange between the two of you. you are both thoughtful posters worthy of each other’s respect.

          • A Fatimist,

            It’s worth a lot. Thank you for those very kind words. I have also enjoyed my exchanges with you. God bless you.

          • if you have the interest and time, if be interested in yiur thoughts on my last post to TGS covering Catholic fascism.

            I am not necessarily expecting agreement.

          • A Fatimist

            I would be happy to give you my thoughts on “Catholic Fascism”, though it is not a term I particularly accept as valid. If you would be so good as to just run your own thoughts past me again as I seem to be having trouble relocating your original comment on this blog. I know it’s there somewhere but there are now so many comments to sift through that I think it would be better if you were to summerise again your main points. Many thanks.

          • I will respond in a bit with a summary of what I mean by the term (which I agree is inartful at best).

          • Martin,

            First, let me dispense with the obvious: I do not endorse the specific, Germanic form of National Socialism espoused by Hitler and his party. It was rife with esoteric occult magick, Darwinism, and racial pseudo-science. I am with Julius Evola in believing that all of these things were “extrinsic” to the core system of fascism, which deserves to be evaluated on its core merits.

            My thinking is influenced deeply by Evola and by Erich von Keuhnelt-Leddihn, the great Austrian Catholic rightist and monarchist.

            While Evola and von K-L differ greatly in their critique of the 20th century, the common thread in their writings is that authority–just authority–comes from above rather than from below. In the traditional Catholic monarchies of Europe, we had a near-perfect embodiment of this idea. The king ruled by divine right but was bound to protect his people and rule with both justice and mercy.

            This is of course in direct contradiction of Protestant, Freemasonic, and Enlightenment notions that authority comes from below or, if you prefer, from the “consent of the governed.”

            The very notion of “consent of the governed” is a farce, a moral fig-leaf for majoritarian tyranny. I did not give my consent to this government to slaughter innocent children, to ship manufacturing capacity overseas, to fight wars on behalf of foreign powers, etc. etc.

            Beyond that, however, any society that bases its state on authority from below will inevitably drift into radical egalitarianism, tearing down hierarchies and institutions and casting them into what Rene Guenon called “the pit of quantity.”

            Over time, the well-ordered monarchies–themselves a reflection of the heavenly hierarchy–yielded to progressive revolution and liberal democracy, culminating in their final destruction in WWI. It is not possible to resuscitate them. The tree has been cut off at the root, so to speak.

            This leaves us with limited options:
            a) Liberal democracy, which I think we both agree is a deeply flawed system that is inimical to traditional Catholicism (and indeed to tradition itself)
            b) Left authoritarianism (aka Communism). Here again, authority flows “from below,” and all proper social distinctions and hierarchies must be dissolved. Not good.
            c) Various forms of anarcho-capitalism. The subject is too broad for this space, but this is not a recipe for a functional, self-sustaining society.
            d) “Fascism.” I define fascism as a social model in which the subsidiary interests of individuals and institutions (i.e., corporations, etc.) are placed in the service of the State.

            What is the State? The State is that which creates the nation. Of course in liberal democracy la-la land, we have it all backwards and are taught that the nation creates the state. This is manifestly absurd. The American nation is the direct result of the state form established by our founders. Prior to this, we were a colony of England and belonged to that nation.

            American “conservatives’ are taught to loathe the State because it supposedly impinges upon “rugged individualism,” which is really just another term for social atomization. Without the state, we have nothing. We are not a people. We cannot achieve greatness. We cannot exist.

            Fascism is the closest thing that is possible in the modern context to monarchy. It draws authority “from above,” it preserves (even celebrates!) hierarchy, it is organized around and owes its very existence to transcendent ideals.

            The question is, “what should those ideals be?” In Hitler’s Germany, the ideals were racial–blood and soil. The entire State apparatus and by extension the nation were organized around the concept of “German-ness.” Competing ideas–such as Christianity–were marginalized because they were too universalist for such a State.

            My thesis, then, is that it is possible to imagine a kind of Catholic fascism, in which a well-ordered State places all subsidiary elements in the service of Catholic morality and theology. Degeneracy would be outlawed, not because it “weakens the bloodlines,’ but because it offends God. Naked capitalism, which treats all persons as interchangeable economic units, would likewise be curtailed in favor of distributism. Personal liberty (property rights, etc.) would be preserved to the extent that they are in the service of the transcendent ideal of the state.

            I feel already that my explanation has drifted into too much abstraction. I would point to Mussolini’s early years, to Salazar, to Franco, and to Pinochet as examples of a kind of “Catholic fascism.” None of them were perfect, mind you. But all of them were healthier and happier societies for Catholics than “Weimerica” and our European cousins of today.

          • A Fatimist

            For the very reason that you rightly reject the Germanic notion of atheistic Racial Fascism, I reject the thoughts and writings of Julius Evola. This man was very deeply involved in Eastern Mysticism and its associated sexual element. He was also an esoterist. This immediately and completely discounts him and his writings as non-Catholic and dangerous.

            I admit that I am not familiar with the writings and thoughts of Erich von Keuhnelt-Leddihn, so I cannot comment on his theories at this time. This having been said, I agree with the general thrust of your argument that democracy is a flawed system that turns the source of authority on its head and is consequently doomed to failure. Authority proceeds from the top down, not the bottom up, as you rightly observe. This rebellion against God and the order established by Him first manifested itself in the Protestant Reformation and was then gradually spread across the globe by the false principles of the French Revolution, which we know to be of Freemasonic inspiration.

            The First World War, as you again correctly observe, brought to an end the last vestiges of Monarchical rule in Europe and paved the way for the complete universal establishment of liberal democracy. You will note that it has been called liberal democracy and socialist democracy, but never Catholic democracy since it is diametrically opposed in principle to the Catholic notion of authority and its source. At any rate, the closest Catholics have come to the old system of national Catholic rule is seen in Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, and Pinochet’s Chile. These are called by the enemies of the Church “Fascist regimes” with the intention of aligning them in people’s minds with the atheistic models of Hitler and Mussolini.

            This of course is completely false and that’s why I reject utterly the term Fascist when describing these Catholic leaders. They were more precisely autocratic as opposed to democratic leaders who understood well that authority comes from God and works its way down through a hierarchy. This understanding was very similar to the Monarchist understanding with the exception that I don’t believe any of the aforementioned saw themselves as divinely appointed and anointed by God, as did the Catholic monarchs. Nevertheless, Christ the King was enthroned in these nations while He was dethroned, and remains dethroned, in democratic nations.

            In studying these historical developments I always advise that we fix our gaze on the teaching of the Church’s Magisterium and put aside the ideas and theories of questionable secular sources such as Julius Evola. All truth and wisdom in these matters is contained in the Encyclicals, such as Mirari Vos, Quanta Cura, Diuturnum Illud, Humanum Genus, Libertas Praestantissimum, Rerum Novarum, Gravis de Communi Re, etc. There is also much to be learned from St. Pius X’s “Our Apostolic Mandate” against the Sillon, as well as Quas Primas and Divini Redemptoris of Pius XI.

            These are the great sources of knowledge wherein the mask of the enemies of God and religion is torn away. I have never felt the need to go beyond these sources to consider the opinions of secular theorists, which can be a very tricky and dangerous business. The Popes say all that needs saying in these matters.

            Incidentally, one of the great tragedies of Vatican II was a certain insinuation of false democratic principles into its hierarchic structure of the Church. You may recall the efforts of some to limit the authority of the Supreme Pontiff, which they called “Collegiality”, a formerly condemned heresy known as
            Gallicanism. While this attempt was countered by the teaching of the more conservative Fathers on the universal authority of the Pope, it was rather understated in a footnote rather than being writ large in the text of the document Lumen Gentium. We have seen the devastating consequences of this in the Church since the Council, the authority of the parish councils, priests councils and Bishops Conferences often trumping the teaching of the Pope.

            I raised this issue in a lengthy article I had published in The Angelus some years ago. I would be very happy to give you a copy if there is a way of making private contact. Otherwise I could post it on this forum with the editor’s permission. Let me say again, though, that it is lengthy, around 3000 words if I recall correctly.

            Now I have gone on enough. I apologise for the long response and for any diversion from the main topic.

          • please send me your article at:

            [email protected]

            your assessment of Evola is spot on. in matters of theology, he is entirely unreliable, perhaps even dangerous . as an historian of Mussolini’s Italy and of the Reich, he is among the very best, having advised the former and critiqued the latter from the right.

            although he was no friend to the Church, he clearly foresaw the rise of modernism within her. he remained until his death a commited Ghibelline.

            von K-L on the other hand, is as orthodox a Catholic as one can find.

          • A Fatimist

            I have just sent the article to your email address, I hope you find it of interest.

            I have done a little research on von K-L since our last exchange and I agree that he does seem to be an orthodox Catholic. I will need to look deeper into his ideas and expressed theories, comparing them with the teaching of the Church, before reaching a difinitive conclusion about him, but thus far he looks sound enough.

            Incidentally, if there is a delay in response on my part to further comments you post in the coming days then please understand that my job keeps me fairly busy on the roads on weekdays and that I will repsond as soon as I get back home. No rest for the wicked, as they say!!

          • if I may recommend three books by Professor von K-L:

            1. Leftism Revisited. his masterpiece. one of the finest surveys of European political history you will find.

            2. the Timeless Christian. his only work of theology.

            e. liberty or Equality: the Challenge of our time. a thoroighgoing and impeccably argued takedown of egalitarianism and liberal democracy

          • I’ll find a review of them somewhere on the Internet to begin with and maybe check the local library to see if they hold copies. Thanks for that.

          • Fair enough! Thanks Martin for this Christian post of yours. Being a historian by education I have become wary of ascribing to the minutiae of human affairs some greater global master plan than is necessary. Fallen human nature, its passions and the Seven Deadly Sins are usually sufficient to account for most things.

          • TGS-

            you and Martin are both exceptional posters, worthy of each other’s respect.

            few, I have seen no rudeness in him towards you. boldness in his convictions? yes, but that is different.

            I hope the two of you will continue to spar, in the spirit of Catholic brotherhood and fidelity to Our Lord. you are both faithful sons of Our Lady!

          • “Reality in this world is governed by self-interest and pragmatism.”

            Yes….and no.

            Geopolitics is downstream from theology. Political reality is downstream from spiritual reality. The long war here in this Valley of Tears is a reflection of the eternal war–the Revolution, if you will–in Heaven.

          • There is no war in Heaven. This vale of tears is not a reflection of anything, that is a deterministic stance which is wholly at variance with the free will God has given us. This world – at least that part of it unredeemed by Grace – is the devil’s lair, but solely because of Original Sin.

          • Just because a thing is not talked about doesn’t make it “hidden.”

            The simple truth is that the Jews have an ancestral hatred of Russia. Jewish Bolsheviks carried out mass slaughter of Russian peasants due to this hatred.

            It is no surprise that Jewish interests today are the loudest and most persistent in pushing for war against Russia.

          • Funnily enough it was Stalin who “de-Jewed” the senior ranks of the CHEKA and its later version, the OGPU, so that by the late 1920s the great preponderance of Jews in senior positions in that organisation of mass murder were RUSSIANS, not Jews. Similarly with the Bolshevik government. I think some fifteen members of Lenin’s first Cabinet were Jews. Most were dead at Stalin’s hands by the end of the 1920s. Lower down, the vast majority were “Christian” Russians in both secret police and government from the beginning.

            Russians killed Russians by the million. To blame the Jews is hardly accurate history.

            One might more usefully ask why there were so many Jews in senior positions until Stalin killed them off.

          • A slight emendation to your otherwise informative post:

            “…the Orthodox culture which has been one thousand years in the nation…”

            Not quite.

            In 988 AD, the Grand Prince Vladimir (Volodymyr in Ukrainian) accepted Baptism into the Catholic Faith. Orthodoxy did not exist until 1054 AD – 66 years later – when Cardinal Humberto and Michael Cerularius hurled excommunications at each other.

            Also, thank you for mentioning the UGCC. (Sending you a hug.)

            Finally, I had no idea you were married. Do you have any children?

            Z nami Boh!

          • As far as I remember, We are talking about RUSSIA, when the article you posted deals with the UKRAINE, a different country, which now has a extreme-right-wing government involved in a de-facto war against the Russian part of its own population … so certainly not the most objective source…

          • No, we were in fact debating the Russian Orthodox sect whose superficial revival you are trying falsely to push as the miracle of conversion promised by the Blessed Virigin. The articlem I posted gives an insight into the real story of non-religious revival in Russia and the still-hostile ambitions of Russian Orthodoxy in both Russia and the Ukraine. It is very relevant to the conversation.

          • Doctor Hesemann, thank you for your input on this topic. It changed my opinion on conspiracy such as “fake Lucia” due to teeth and typewriter, and I certainly appreciate your time and fact you engaged with me on this matter.

            I never choose to be the relevant interpreter nor I ever intended to be one. Either way a common believer can change the situation but indirectly; with helping to spread the message, devotion of Five Saturdays and do the things Our Lady continuously asked in form of penance, rosary, brown scapular, etc;

            I find it very hard to swallow not because of the love of conspiracies, but because of the reasons I mentioned and overwhelming “smoking guns” like no Triumph of the Immaculate Heart to this date, and many bishops and cardinals stating the same. There is no difference on paper if we compare the 1984 consecration to the one of Pius XII. In fact the one of Pius XII actually shortened WWII.

            I suppose if consecration vas valid there is no harm to be consecrated as specified (by mentioning Russia) again that would silence even the highest critics once and for all.

            “But I am sure Our lady would cry bitter tears on this open misuse and manipulation of Her message.”

            I beg you to reconsider your thesis on the “bishop dressed in white”. The official explanation from Vatican is that it was the failed assassination attempt of JPII , because all this talk of future events is, according to your words, going to manipulate Our Lady’s message even more. You can’t have it both ways. Either you accept 100% explanations from Vatican or question all. Otherwise there is no difference to what you hold against some of us and what you are doing.

            Good luck in your future endowers and safe trip to Rome,

            In Christ,

            F.Z.U.

          • The official interpretation of the Third Secret, as published by the Vatican in 2000, was an OFFER. Since the world situation is a different one since 9/11, everyone has a right to question it, since it was even questioned by its author himself, Joseph Card Ratzinger=Pope Benedict XVI who, on his trip to Fatima in 2010, said that it might very well refer to events of the future, too. QUOTE: ” Consequently, I would say that, here too, beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in the first place refer to Pope John Paul II, an indication is given of realities involving the future of the Church, which are gradually taking shape and becoming evident. So it is true that, in addition to moment indicated in the vision, there is mention of, there is seen, the need for a passion of the Church, which naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope, yet the Pope stands for the Church and thus it is sufferings of the Church that are announced. The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world.” The same was stated by one of his closest coworkers, Cardinal Kurt Koch. We all agree that the Third Secret describes the persecution of the Church, culminating in an attempt to kill the Pope. We hope that 1981 was the only such attempt, but can we be sure about that nowadays?

          • “This obviously is the reason why Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that the Third Secret should be read after 1960 to be clearer understood”

            Or perhaps it can be referred to the Second Vatican Council and the dangers of altering the one true faith that can now lead souls to hell with modernistic theology. (i.e would there be a possibility for papal official newspaper L”Osservatore Romano to sing praise for Maltese Bishop guidelines concerning Amoris Laetitia if there the stones weren’t set in 1962-65?)

            Why would Lucia write down the vision of hell with relative ease, and then as late John Venarri put when Lucia “wrote down the Secret in 1944, under obedience, had a very hard time doing it because of its disturbing contents. Sister Lucy’s interior conflict was so great that on January 2, 1944, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy and told her that yes, Heaven willed that she write down the Secret”?

            Do you really believe that she was bothered more by nuclear war than her vision of hell??

            “And fear ye not them that kill the body, and are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him that can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Mt 10, 28

            And for the love of God doctor, where is the promised period of peace if 1984 consecration was valid? Should we ask the Christians in the Middle East or China if they think we are living in it now?

            Why is Heaven not holding their promise if consecration was valid? As we can recall there was no other condition for the pope and the bishops;“the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me; she will be converted and there will be PEACE.

          • Memento Mori: Our Lady of Fatima referred to the danger of another world war and to the situation in Europe. Indeed we have peace in Europe since 1984, when Lucia was warned of the imminent danger of a Nuclear War breaking out in 1985, which was only prevented by the consecration done by St. JPII. 33 years of peace is one of the longest period in history without war. Even in the Middle East are civil wars but no multinational wars ever since.

            Once again and for the last time since I travel to Rome tomorrow and will be busy:

            1. “Russias errors” refers to atheist communism, as Sr. Lucia clearly said in her videotaped and televized interview on Oct .11,1993: “Atheism is the greatest heresy and it is spread by the atheist communism. … It was the atheist communism which caused many wars in the world. Atheism is still the main instrument chosen by the devil today. Since it is a severe sin against God to deny His existence. To go this way, to behave according to it, is a variation of diabolical activities such as abortion.”

            2. “The momentary wars are all civil wars. People fighting against their government, not wars supported by Russia through communism… they are local. Our Lady spoke of world wars, of a world war caused b the errors spread by Russia over the world.”

            Of course we can chose to ignore her and make ourselves the only relevant interpretor of the message of Fatima. We can ignore that Sr. Lucia had visions of Our Lady for practically all her life. But instead, we can define our own message of Fatima, as Fr. Gruner did, promote it, attack the Church, the Vatican and the Pope and collect lots of money and gain support from schismatic and sedisvacantist circles. But I am sure Our lady would cry bitter tears on this open misuse and manipulation of Her message to all of us and the open refusal of Her promised gift, the miracle of the conversion of Russia, which we can all experience. Well, it converted as she wanted and promised it, not as we imagined it. But do we have the right to ask God to fulfill our expectation?

          • Ok so the second interview with Evaristo and Co. took place on 10/11/93 and was videotaped. On what date was it broadcast, and on which station? Can you direct us to anything online which would support this, or better yet to where a recording of this interview might be obtained? Lastly, have you seen it yourself?

          • You are completely wrong about Carlos Evaristo, since you obviously believe in the lies and defamation spread by a certain suspended renegade priest on him, after this “priest” ignored the possibility to clarify his claims with nobody else than Sr. Lucia in person – a chance every serious Fatima researcher would be grateful for – but instead continued to spread his wild conspiracy theories. It is true that the FIRST part of Carlos’ book, the interview of Kardinal Padiyara was based on Carlos Evaristos careful notes of the conversation which he made as the interpretor for Sr .Lucia, with the accuracy of its content confirmed by Sr. Lucia herself. The second part, the interview with cardinal Vidal, was filmed and broadcast on Portugese national TV. In this interview, in front of a TV camera, Sr. Lucia confirms the valid consecration of Russia and the fulfillment of Our Ladies promise by the conversion of Russia. Sr. Lucia says in that VIDEOTAPED interview: “When we read the texts properly we will understand their meaning!Our Lady only spoke of the errors und wars caused by those errors. The errors of atheist communism in the whole world.”

            The message of Fatima was given on July 13, 1917, the year of the Communist revolution. The call for the consecration came on June 13, 1929, the year when Stalin became dictator and started an even more violent persecution of the Church. When the call of Our Lady was ignored by Pope Pius XI, WWII broke out and indeed caused the spread of communism in all Eastern Europe and great parts of Asia (China!). Neither 1917, nor 1929 nor 1939 mark any missionary activities by the Russian orthodox Church. Therefore any claims that “Russia’s errors” refers to the Orthodox faith are ABSURD, since Russian orthodoxy never caused any “wars, persecution of the Church, suffering of the Holy Father or annihilation of whole nations” in the 20th or 21st century. Indeed, it lost ALL its political influence even before the first apparition in Fatima, namely with the February revolution of 1917, when socialist freemasons took over power in Russia, and only regained it under Vladimir Putin in 1999. Communism did all this – and even brought the world to the brink of WWIII twice, in 1962 and 1983-85. This obviously is the reason why Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that the Third Secret should be read after 1960 to be clearer understood – in 1944, when it was written down, the idea of a nuclear war between Russia and the US was just beyond any imagination; it became a realistic possibility only with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even in 1961, the USSR had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles, but started to increase its arsenal fast.

          • Michael Heseman

            So what you are arguing essentially is that Evaristo is correct when he declares (in Sister Lucy’s name) that Our Lady was only concerned with ridding Russia of a nasty ideology so that that nation could get back on track with its schismatic Orthodox religion while the rest of the world got on unmolested with its various sects and creeds, in peace and harmony with each other of course? Does that sound even remotely consistent with the infallible dogma ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’?

            Once again I ask you: Do you accept that Our Lady was less interested in Russia’s conversion to the true Faith than in ridding that nation of a brutal regime? That’s Carlos Evaristos’ declaration. Is that what you believe? And what of the promised triumph or the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the perid of global peace? What’s your take on those non-events following the 1984 Act of John Paul II? What does Carlos have to say on Sister Lucy’s behalf about this?

          • Carlos Evaristo did not declare anything, he just quoted Sr. Lucia. The Cardinals Vidal, Padiyara, Meisner and Bertone and anybody who wrote her all got the same reply from Sr. Lucia. We caneither take her serious or ignore her and with her the message of Fatima itself. Obviously you are very young and do not remember the crimes of communism and the attempt to spread this antichristian, atheist and evil ideology ALL OVER THE WORLD, in Latin America, in Africa, in Asia and Europe. You do not remember the communist massacres during the Spanish civil war with THOUSANDS of Roman Catholic priests and religious as victims, or the communist massacres in Mexico. You don’t know anything about the persecution of the Roman Catholic church in communist Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Slowakia or Croatia as well as in Orthodox Russia and Serbia. No political ideology in history killed so many Christians and persecuted the Church in such a severe, violent way (and still does in North Korea and China). So we are not talking about a “nasty ideology” like, let’s say, the Democrats in the US, but we are talking about a violent, aggressive antichristian ideology which had, as its ultimate goal, the “world revolution” and the elimination of any religious faith. An ideology openly condemned by Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Divini Redemptoris, describing communism as “a system full of errors and sophisms” that “subverts the social order, because it means the destruction of its foundations”. To get an idea of the number of crimes and victioms of communism, just look at any encyclopedia, even wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

            Russia, since the October revolution, was the mother land of all communist revolutions, with its subsidiaries all over the world. With the conversion of Russia, the few remaining communist regimes lost its “big brother” and patron and were (or are) sooner or later forced to moderate. It was like cutting off the snake’s head! So we rare not just talking about a local regime change, but we are talking about the conversion of the home- and motherland of the most dangerous threat to Christianity in the 20th century which indeed was properly described by Our Lady of Fatima as an ideology which “causes wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated”.

            NONE of those criteria describe the Russian orthodox faith in any way. Indeed, Russian orthodoxy is in no way affecting the world outside Russia and there was certainly no reason for Our Lady to appear in Portugal to warn about a Church – schismatic or not – which already faced persecution a few month later, after the October revolution. She had a good reason to warn about the dangers of communism, which caused the bloody civil war in Spain, its neighboring country where the “Red Terror” took about 50.000 lives – all of good, faithful Catholics! see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror_(Spain)

          • You are completely wrong about Carlos Evaristo, since you obviously believe in the lies and defamation spread by a certain suspended renegade priest on him, after this “priest” ignored the possibility to clarify his claims with nobody else than Sr. Lucia in person – a chance every serious Fatima researcher would be grateful for – but instead continued to spread his wild conspiracy theories. It is true that the FIRST part of Carlos’ book, the interview of Kardinal Padiyara was based on Carlos Evaristos careful notes of the conversation which he made as the interpretor for Sr .Lucia, with the accuracy of its content confirmed by Sr. Lucia herself. The second part, the interview with cardinal Vidal, was filmed and broadcast on Portugese national TV. In this interview, in front of a TV camera, Sr. Lucia confirms the valid consecration of Russia and the fulfillment of Our Ladies promise by the conversion of Russia. Sr. Lucia says in that VIDEOTAPED interview: “When we read the texts properly we will understand their meaning!Our Lady only spoke of the errors und wars caused by those errors. The errors of atheist communism in the whole world.”

            The message of Fatima was given on July 13, 1917, the year of the Communist revolution. The call for the consecration came on June 13, 1929, the year when Stalin became dictator and started an even more violent persecution of the Church. When the call of Our Lady was ignored by Pope Pius XI, WWII broke out and indeed caused the spread of communism in all Eastern Europe and great parts of Asia (China!). Neither 1917, nor 1929 nor 1939 mark any missionary activities by the Russian orthodox Church. Therefore any claims that “Russia’s errors” refers to the Orthodox faith are ABSURD, since Russian orthodoxy never caused any “wars, persecution of the Church, suffering of the Holy Father or annihilation of whole nations” in the 20th or 21st century. Indeed, it lost ALL its political influence even before the first apparition in Fatima, namely with the February revolution of 1917, when socialist freemasons took over power in Russia, and only regained it under Vladimir Putin in 1999. Communism did all this – and even brought the world to the brink of WWIII twice, in 1962 and 1983-85. This obviously is the reason why Our Lady told Sr. Lucia that the Third Secret should be read after 1960 to be clearer understood – in 1944, when it was written down, the idea of a nuclear war between Russia and the US was just beyond any imagination; it became a realistic possibility only with the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even in 1961, the USSR had only four intercontinental ballistic missiles, but started to increase its arsenal fast.

          • Thank you for this perspective.

            I have wondered about this for a long time. Since I have never seen any interpretation that stated “return to the Catholic faith” or any other specific, detailed directive that “Russia” would become Catholic, I have had my curiosity about the full meaning. Your perspective is quite plausible and with it in mind, many of the confusions can be cleared up.

            I myself was studying communist systems and history of Christian mission at the time. I was Protestant, but anyone alive at that time {circa ’89-’93} can assure all the doubters what happened to Russia is most assuredly a “conversion” of sorts compared to the options we all saw as most probable at that time. No one expected a bloodless exchange of power. It was a “miracle” to have happened as it did. And conversion, that is, “metanoia” is a radical change from one direction to another. That absolutely certainly, most obviously DID occur in Russia even if conversion TO the Catholic faith did not.

            Another example comes to mind. I was in South Africa before and during the collapse of the old National Party apartheid regime and that, too, can be called a “conversion” of a nation. For that nation to switch directions without a complete collapse and horrific civil war {it was bad enough} was nothing short of miraculous, again, in light of what most analysts expected.

            Having said all this, the errors of Russia {atheism, abortion “rights”, elements of the command economy philosophy, social controls, cynicism, cultural Marxism, destruction of marriage and the family} HAVE spread…throughout the West and all developed countries!

            In the end, I prefer to finish by saying that ultimately the message of the Blessed Virgin is ALWAYS a message calling for the worship and conversion TO HER SON. She does nothing to attract favor or honor to herself in separation from her Son. HE is God…and He is worthy of our love…with all our life and might. WE must be converted to HIM.

            May God bless and save the Catholic faith.

  2. I should note here that just because we published Dr. Hesemann’s thoughts on Fatima doesn’t (obviously, if you’ve read our other work on the topic) mean we agree with all of it.

    Nevertheless, it’s an intriguing perspective from someone who has spent a lot of time with the source material. And with Fatima, you have to assemble the data you have to help carve out the shape of the data you don’t.

    Reply
    • Thank you, Steve! As I said at the beginning of the interview, Dr. Hesemann and I have some polite disagreements. But I honestly enjoy his frankness and his willingness to speak with someone who disagrees with him in certain areas. He certainly presents us in this interview with perspectives, facts, and thoughts that are very much worth considering, for example concerning the missing documents from Sister Lucia herself, as well as the assessment of what is the deeper reason for the sudden massive immigration into Europe. I hope that our readers can appreciate it.

      Reply
      • Thank you for your efforts.

        Dr. Hesemann misunderstood the secret given at LaSalette.

        Referring to the text of the secret, he stated: ‘It also mentions that ‘a great country in the North of France … will convert; with the support of this country all nations of the world will convert.’ Let’s hope that this refers to the conversion of Russia and its role in the future.”

        The actual text, signed by the seer and which can be viewed online, was released by the Vatican several years ago.

        The text states: “Une grande contrée dans le nord de l’Europe, aujourd ‘hui protestante, se convertira: par l’appui de cette contrée toutes les autres contrées du monde se convertiront.”

        My translation: “A large country (or land, region) in the north of Europe, today Protestant, will convert. By means of this country, all the other countries of the world will convert.”

        Russia obviously does not fit that description.

        Reply
          • The British Empire with a Catholic form, with a Catholic monarchy. A beautiful thought.

        • But England does. which would agree with Blessed Mari Taigi’s prophecy that Russia, China, and England would be miraculously converted. (Great Britain is today practically godless.

          Reply
        • I did not “misunderstand” the secret given in La Salette, I just offered an interpretation. There is no large, protestant country in the North of Europe. There are small Scandinavian countries. There is only one large, VERY BIG country in the North and that is Russia. I assume that Our Lady used the term “schismatic” which the children did not understand. So someone explained them what it means and used the protestants as an example. This is why the children replaced the original term by this “explanation”.It is always dofficult to keep unknown words in mind, especially five years after the apparition. Also, there is no other prediction or prophecy giving the conversion if Sweden or Denmark or Norway any significance, when, on the other hand, we have the Fatima message which gives the conversion of Russia tremendous importance. So I just read the message of La Salette in the light of the message of Fatima!

          Reply
          • Perhaps it might be at some point Germany? We know for sure that, once the Germans set their minds on something, they will get to work on it! Meaning: once they would convert, they might help immensely with the conversion of Europe?

          • The seer wrote the word “protestante.” There is no reason to doubt that that’s what was stated to him. If there is a reason to doubt that, then there is a reason to doubt the entire statement. The conversion of England has been prophesied by other mystics. England is in the north of Europe, and it was then “aujourd’hui protestante.”

          • Well, England is not really in the North of Europe, but in the West. If we take the secret literally, it does not say “north of France”, but in the “north of Europe”. Besides, we can discuss if Anglicans are protestants or rather schismatics. They separated from Rome for political, not doctrinal reasons and still are in Apostolic succession. Germany is not a protestant nation, too, but has 29 % Catholics, 27 % Protestants, 8 % Muslims and 36 % Atheists.

          • From Wikipedia: “Northern Europe is the northern part or region of Europe. Although no definitive borders or definition exists for the term, geographically, Northern Europe may be considered to consist approximately of all of Europe above the 52nd parallel north; which includes (from west to east) most or all of: Iceland, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man, the United Kingdom…”

            England is “in the north of Europe.” It has been Protestant since the reign of Queen Elizabeth.

            The seer wrote “today protestant.” If that is just a fabrication on his part, then there is no reason to believe any of the other things he stated.

            If neither England nor Germany can be considered “protestante,” then neither can Russia.

            In fact, even less so, by a factor many, many times over. The number of Protestants in Russia is, and always has been, miniscule in comparison to the overall population.

            In fact, the alleged prophecy is a failed prophecy, as he also wrote: “Tout ce que je vous dis là arrivera dans l’autre siècle, [au] plus tard aux deux millle ans.”

            “All that I tell you will arrive in the other century, at the latest, by the year 2000.”

          • Dr Hesemann. “Besides, we can discuss if Anglicans are protestants or rather schismatics. They
            separated from Rome for political, not doctrinal reasons and still are in Apostolic succession.”

            Schism is the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity by severance, disassociation or separation from the Church / Mystical Body of Christ. If separation on political grounds excused schism, which it does not, then the Chinese Patriotic Church, for example, would not be in schism.

            Pope Leo XIII clearly demonstrated in his 1896 Bull Apostolicae curae, that Anglican ‘bishops’ did not maintain the Apostolic Succession and therefore, do not have the power either to consecrate other bishops, ordain priests, or minister true sacraments. Hence their supposed hierarchy and
            priesthood are just appearances.

            A distinction is made between the Orthodox Churches and bodies such as the Church of England or the Lutheran Church, which have neither the Apostolic Succession nor the Seven Sacraments. This
            distinction is made clear in the CDF Declaration Dominus Iesus ratified and confirmed by Pope John Paul II on 16 June 2000.

            The Declaration reserves the word ‘Church’ for those bodies that have preserved a “valid episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery” which include the Orthodox Churches. Other bodies, most notably Protestants, are called ‘ecclesial communities’ rather than ‘Churches’ for such Christian communities “are not Churches in the proper sense.”

            JMJ

          • I’m sorry did you say Anglicans are still in Apostolic succession? How can this be since Pope Leo XIII condemned Anglican orders? Oh that’s right I forgot Paul VI reversed this pronouncement so he could give himself permission to revise Latin Rite orders. ?

          • “Besides, we can discuss if Anglicans are protestants or rather schismatics. They separated from Rome for political, not doctrinal reasons ..”

            WHAT?!

            Have you never heard of the Thirty-Nine Articles, the Anglican doctrinal statement, which calls the Mass “a fable and dangerous deceit”? Have you never heard of the Forty Martyrs of England & Wales? Leo XIII’s condemnation of Anglican orders?

            If THIS is your position Dr. Hesemann, you are a complete phoney and no Catholic intellectual at all. With this, your credibility is zero.

            God in Heaven.

          • Perhaps the Secret alludes to a future time, after a world altering chastisement, in which the whole of Northern Europe is one, new nation and this nation is the one that converts and leads the rest to conversion

          • The Netherlands … large??? Most states of the US are bigger. It takes you exactly two hours by car to cross that country. Germany is NOT a protestant country. 24 Million of the 80 Mio Germans are Catholic, 22 million protestant, 7 million Muslims (like Russia!), the largest group is atheist.

          • What are you looking for? Something the size of China in north Europe? You won’t find it will you? “Large” is relative …. .

            As to Germany, don’t get me started. Two of my Uncles died at the hands of your appalling nation. Germany is a pagan country now, because it was protestant (in the north!).

      • I liked the article very mbut I have a question. Your first name is unusual and very beautiful. What is its origin? (If you don’t mind my asking)

        Reply
        • Dear Ann, Thank you for your comment. Maike is a Friesian and northern German form of the name Maria. I am a convert, and I was very touched when I found out the origin of my name on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception 2003!

          Reply
          • Thank you for telling me. I wondered if it was from Scandinavia when I first saw it. What a lovely translation. I bet the Blessed Mother had something to do with your coming into the Church. I’m pretty sure that naming a child after her is a sure channel of grace even if the parents have no idea about the significance of the name.

          • Nomen est omen. The name is a sign.

            Margaret is Greek for “pearl” (c.f. the parable of the merchant).
            Ann – Hebrew – grace

    • Steve,

      With respect, that won’t wash. By giving Dr Hesemann’s baseless theories a platform, you are complicit in leading people into more confusion and ultimately leading them away from the truth about Fatima. You are thus in danger of classifying yourself as one of the “false friends of Fatima” described by Christopher Ferrara in his book of that name. People are confused enough as it is, with the enemies of Fatima (World Apostolate of Fatima springs to mind) peddling their lies, without a blog which makes a living out of portraying itself as “traditional” taking the same line, peddling the same lies in the name of presenting “an intriguing perspective” – it’s not “intriguing” at all; it’s just another attempt to bury the truth about Fatima and just because someone has the title “Dr” doesn’t make his “perspective” any more important than any of the others who are plain wrong about Fatima. No traditional Catholic promotes these falsehoods about Fatima. The Consecration of Russia has not been done as specified by Our Lady; and “conversion” means conversion to the Catholic religion, not “conversion” to a different political and economic system, for goodness sake. Does this man seriously think that’s what Our Lady meant when she promised that Russia would be converted? As for his baloney about the Third Secret being fully revealed and all we need now are some letters written by Sr Lucia – tosh.

      Enough of the “foot in both camps” mentality. Decide, Steve, if you are running a “traditional” (i.e. a truly Catholic) blog with authentic Catholic positions on Fatima and every other controversy, or whether you simply want to discuss “intriguing perspectives” which amount to falsehoods from “someone who has spent a lot of time with the source material” – did he speak to Father Gruner RIP? Has he read any of Father Gruner’s material?

      Reply
      • Of course I did not waste my time with Nicholas Gruner, who was suspended from priesthood because of his disobedience and unpriestly behaviour and who is the source of so many lies and conspiracy theories on Fatima that just mudden the water. He was also considered a holocaust denier and antisemite. At the end he even sided with the Bayside crowd, the followers of Veronica Lueken who claimed that Pope Paul VI was replaced by a lookalike by Freemasons who “took over the Vatican”. This obviously inspired Gruner to make similar claims about Sr. Lucia despite the fact that all her relatives confirm that she is always was the same. When Carlos Evaristo eventually organized him an encounter with Sr. Lucia to set the records straight, Gruner delayed the meeting so much that it was originally cancelled and he was able to spread his lies and collect more donations from his deluded followers.

        Reply
        • Utterly false. Not a word of truth, and the fact that you think that Father Gruner was suspended by the Church authorities, alone shows that you haven’t even the basic ability to conduct research. I cannot believe how you have twisted and turned to attack the saintly Father Gruner, RIP

          My (American) blogger at http://www.catholictruthscotland.com was right when he said that this discussion of your theories brands 1P5 as unreliable. Totally.

          I won’t waste my time reading any more of your nonsense.

          Reply
          • The Vatican issued a reminder that Father Nicholas Gruner, who is organizing a Conference for Peace in the World in Rome, has been suspended from public exercise of his priestly ministry. The notification, published by the Congregation for the Clergy and signed by its prefect and secretary, stated: “By mandate of the Superior Authority, the Congregation for the Clergy wishes to point out that there is a suspension ´a divinis´ on Don Nicholas Gruner, confirmed by a definitive sentence of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signature.”

            It continued: “Therefore, the activities of Don Gruner … do not have the approval of the legitimate ecclesiastical authorities.”

            https://zenit.org/articles/vatican-reminds-about-father-gruner-s-suspension/

          • Kind of like the misinformation that has circulated for years about Malachi Martin and even though he has been dead some years (and has been proved absolutely correct in all his analysis) they still circulate this stuff.

          • Since you mention Fr. Malachi Martin I always found something kind of strange. One year after Fr. Martin passed into eternity, which rumor has it he was pushed down the steps, the Vatican released the so called Third Secret. Lies, Deceitfulness, Coverups, Conspiracies all to silence the truth about Fatima!!! The Pope’s refusal to obey God will result in every man, woman and child experiencing a great spiritual/physical chastisement.

          • Yes Origen. I found the timing curious. He would have called out any fakery in the release of the Secret. And he died under strange circumstances and then the Secret is revealed with a very controlled narrative. A little smoky say I.

          • Thank you, Margaret, for posting that defense of Father Gruner. I was about to go looking for it myself, in response to Mr. Hesemann’s posting of the false party line, but you saved me the trouble!

          • Michael Hesemann

            Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was designated a “scismatic” and “excommunicate” by Modernist Vatican sources for his unyielding defence of the Faith handed down. Fr. Nicholas Gruner was likewise calumniated as a “suspended and disobedient priest” for his defence of the full and true Message and request of Our Lady of Fatima. Look to the Churchmen who are persecuted for their defence of truth by the liberal elite in the Conciliar Church and think before making future rash and, frankly, sinful judgments on dedicated priests of God. You have no business speaking ill of the late Fr. Gruner, a man absolutely dedicated to the Church and the truth. I met the man and I can tell you that what they said about him was all lies spread abroad to silence him.

            The same “Vatican sources” are not so quick to tell us that bishops and priests who place the Blessed Sacrament in the hands of standing communicants and use extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion week in and week out are disobedient to the Church and the Popes. Have you read what the Popes since Paul VI have said about these things? Shouldn’t these be the suspended priests that the Vatican castigates? No, it’s always the Traditional priests, the priests who refuse mediocrity and compromise with divine truth who get persecuted, just like their Saviour.

            As for Russia and the consecration, no one in light of the fruits would argue today that Russia is converted. No one with a truly honest reading of John Paul II’s 1984 Act of Consecration would argue that it even remotely fulfilled Our Lady’s request for a Papal/Episcopal consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart. The Pope himself acknowledged that his act fell short of the Blessed Virgin’s request in that it did not mention Russia and the bishops of the world did not take part. That’s why Pope John Paul II inserted an unscripted line into his Act that more or less read: “Enlighten especially that nation whose consecration you still await from Us”. John Paul wanted to mention Russia, he knew he had to, but was advised not to mention it by the same people who say that Fr. Gruner was a disobedient and suspended priest. So they who advised the Pope to disobey Our Lady and heaven then go on to accuse Fr. Gruner and you believe them? You need to think these things through and recognise that there are clerical enemies of truth at the highest levels in the Church right now. You just cannot believe everything Vatican sources tell you. In fact, you have to be suspicious these days of anything they tell you.

            At any rate, Russia did not convert to the Catholic religion post-1984, the only conversion that heaven is interested in. This single fact should tell you all you need to know about who is and is not telling the whole truth about Fatima. Learn to discern, my friend, that was Our Lord’s advice. Blind obedience to superiors is neither expedient nor Catholic. Only dead fish flow with the current!

          • Christ is Risen!

            Bravo, Martin!

            Also, it’s nice to see *you* as well as Madame Editor on this side of the pond. Don’t stay away so long, OK?

            Yours in Christ the King,

            Margaret

          • Margaret

            Thank you for your kind words. As you probably know I do most of my blogging on the CT blog, so it’s not likely that I will be visiting here very often. I just felt it my duty to defend the Message and Secret of Fatima that the posting of Michael Hesemann’s article seriously undermined. I was further driven by duty to defend the good name of the late Fr. Gruner, a holy priest and great servant of Our Lady who has for too long been scurrilously calumniated by people who call themselves Catholics. To condemn a priest on rumour and unsubstantiated accusation without reading thoroughly his own story is a sin against both justice and charity. No one who has read Fr. Gruner’s account of the facts could repeat the lie that he was disobedient or otherwise worthy of suspension.

            It grieves me when Catholics put themselves forward as intellectuals in these very serious matters pertaining to the good names of others and the salvation of souls when it is clear that they haven’t done their homework. Mr. Hesemann who detracts from the truth about Fatima and repeats falsehoods against Fr. Gruner didn’t even know that the Anglicans lost the Apostolic Succession following the Reformation. As a widely-published Catholic writer myself, that really troubles me. Catholic authors must realise the very great responsibility they bear before God for what they produce in public.

            Anyway, thatnks Margaret. I hope to see you over at the CT blog.

            God bless.

          • Margaret

            Yes, I saw your comment over at CT. You’re what we call in Scotland a prolific wummin contributor. More power to your pen!

            God bless
            Martin

          • Michael Hesemann

            And the reason they gave for this supension of Fr. Gruner? Do they provide a factually documented reason?

            Have you read what Fr. Gruner had to say in his defence? No, I’ll bet you didn’t go that deeply into it. He deserved to be heard before being condemned, that’s a basic law of the Church and a right under God, yet he got no hearing from these Churchmen. They clearly wanted to silence Fr. Gruner because he pursued a truth they were trying very hard to suppress. Or maybe you think these Churchmen are infallible in all their declarations, to be blindly obeyed in every utterance? That would be completely wrong and not at all in line with the teaching of the Church. How much objective research have you actually done in this matter?

          • Didn’t the Vatican suspend Padre Pio’s priestly faculties? It looks like Fr. Gruner is in good company!

            Why was Fr. Gruner found to be a threat to the Faith? It’s puzzling – it seems to me all he talked and wrote about was Our Lady’s message to the three children. Why is there such a concerted effort to blacken and vilify the memory of a priest who had the humility to spread the message of Fatima without trying to alter it in any way?

          • Mr Hesemann, in charity, your whole approach reminds one of someone looking for facts to prove a preconceived bias disguised as academic sophistry. As to your misplaced, misinformed calumny of Fr Gruner?
            There is two defining characteristics that Fr Gruner has consistently displayed.
            First, a highly developed clarity of thought in all communications both written and spoken. He always goes back to the defined Truths/Dogmas of the Church.
            Second, a great sense of humility, charity and kindness to everyone whether supporters or detractors alike. In a word..”Holiness”
            Clearly, the same can not be said about his detractors.
            The following is a full response to your bashing of him. It makes Zenit look foolish.

            http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/defense/notsusvir.asp
            =====================================================================

          • It is of no consequence to me what brand you and your friends choose to apply to us. We are examining the issue from multiple perspectives. I think I’ve made my own position on Fatima fairly clear — I tend to believe there’s more to the Third Secret and that JPII’s consecration was insufficient in meeting our lady’s requirements.

            But Dr. Hesemann is correct when he says that conspiracy theories muddy the water, and I find valuable his perspective as a skeptic who nevertheless believes we have not been told the entire story.

            I also prefer not to burn bridges among people of good will, even if we don’t yet agree on everything. I appreciate Dr. Hesemann’s gracious willingness to work with us, and I had hoped we could demonstrate to him that not everyone who believes we’ve been deceived on Fatima is a wild-eyed caricature.

            My thanks, therefore, to those of you who have aired your disagreements with charity and respect

          • Well it SHOULD concern you that we now class you among the “blogs/websites to approach with caution”. Even a drop of poison makes a plate of food dangerous, and the same is true of the Faith. I take no pleasure in saying this, believe me, and have put many links to your blog on our site over time, even, on occasion, using one of your articles for discussion on our blog. So, I am not “the enemy”, believe me. This, attack on Fatima, however, cannot be allowed to go unremarked, and that as forcefully as possible. Sorry if my “tone” offends the gentler souls among us. Not my intention.

            Your sentiments about not burning bridges with people of goodwill etc are (with respect!) purely human sentiments – human respect, in fact. Our Lord showed no such concern when some of His disciples rejected His teachings (John 6) and said they would “walk with Him no more.” The truth cannot be compromised and that is also true of the Fatima Message – the most important event in the 20th century.

            There’s no “conspiracy theory” about it. It’s obvious to anyone of average intelligence who properly researches Fatima, that the Vatican is withholding the full truth about Fatima. Statements from the recent popes verify this. So, “conspiracy” – yes… “theory”? No.

            Clearly I’m not included in your final expression of gratitude to those who have “aired [their] disagreements with charity and respect” because, as I’ve learned over the painful years of editing Catholic Truth, few there are who can distinguish forthrightness from lack of charity and true respect. As is required of me by my baptism, I respect each and every human being as a creature of God, but I am not required to “respect” their every word, notably any religious and moral errors to which they may adhere. As for “charity” – again, true charity is seldom pretty in debate and few people can distinguish true charity from base human respect.

            I had the great privilege of meeting and talking to Father Gruner at some length over a period of time – he was kind enough to accept our invitation to address a Conference in Scotland in 2009, and later invited me to attend a couple of his Fatima Conferences in Rome. I don’t say lightly that I felt, even then, that I was in the presence of a very saintly priest. I spend most of my time reporting on the other sort, so believe me, I’m not easily fooled. Father Gruner, like Archbishop Lefebvre of the SSPX, will one day be recognised for his huge contribution to exposing the truth about the “new Springtime” that is the sheer horror of Vatican II Catholicism. As for the allegations of suspension, disobedience, etc against Fr Gruner,. I’ll pass over in near silence the self-evident fact that the Church across the world is packed with disobedient priests who are never rebuked, let alone suspended, so any intelligent person studying the decline of the Catholic Church in our times, is highly unlikely to conclude that a priest like Fr Gruner, who dedicated his life to spreading the truth about Fatima, is to blame. I mean, please. Gimme a break! And, in passing only I will refer to the Catholic lay-men who acted as lawyers and advisers to Father Gruner – e.g. Christopher Ferrara – is HE an unfaithful/schismatic Catholic? Gerragrip, folks! Have you read ANY of his writings?

            Finally, Steve, what you or I “tend to believe” about Fatima is neither here nor there. Fatima is much too important to be consigned to a file labelled VOMP (Various Opinions & Multiple Perspectives). We have a duty to study the known facts, and they can only be found at http://www.fatima.org

            God bless you.

          • Well it SHOULD concern you that we now class you among the “blogs/websites to approach with caution”.

            We? What, you and your cats?

            You’re a nobody. Always have been, always will.

          • I certainly am a “nobody” – that’s for sure and I’ve never claimed to be anyone who matters. But I would be very concerned if anyone considered the blog of which I am administrator as one “to approach with caution” because of its tendency to follow journalistic norms of “balancing” truth and falsehood, and thus giving a platform to error. When we, at Catholic Truth, publish “error”, we immediately juxtapose it with the truth, the purpose being to educate and lead people away from the error. I would have thought (and hoped) that Steve would hold to the same policy, but it seems not.

            It’s not good enough to have written the truth about Fatima in other articles in the past. Imagine a school teacher justifying teaching small children that there are theories showing that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 4, but perhaps 5 or 6, on the basis that she’d previously taught them the right answer. Parents would be – rightly – up in arms. That’s all I meant. I would have been impressed if Steve had acknowledged that it is a mistake to present error without correction – but, in fact, Steve only “tends” to believe what Dr Hesemann categorises as “conspiracy theories” so he is not clear at all on Fatima. At this stage, I consider that to be a sign that his writings, certainly on this subject, must be approached with caution. I’m still trying to work my way through writings that ARE sound on this, without confusing myself by reading dubious “multiple perspectives” as Steve puts it.

            For the record, though, I really feel nervous around cats, so I don’t have any!

          • Hi Steve,

            While I do not deny your genuine good will, I would caution against publishing articles by people who use dubious sources and make clearly ridiculous claims that can only result in confusion among Catholics. We all know the established facts about Fatima and we all know which sources can be trusted and which sources cannot be trusted. Michael Hesemann’s piece is just off the wall on all counts. He speaks of the Third Secret as a material chastisement when all indicators are that it is much, much worse than that.

            The Third Secret speaks of a spiritual chastisement, the great apostasy of the nations from God and a crisis of Faith at the highest levels in the Church, a worldwide loss of souls for all eternity. Global conflicts, including the rise of Islam in an apostate Christian world, were spoken of in the Second part or the Secret, not the Third. Furthermore, the sentence “In Portugal the dogmas of the faith will always be preserved, etc…” is not the last sentence of the Second Secret but the commencing sentence of the Third part, and it refers to supernatural events, the loss of faith. That Our Lady spoke these words is clear evidence that there is an accompanying text of her words describing the Third Secret vision, just as she narrated the First and Second parts. That text is very evidently suppressed, and not for reasons of caution that it might cause sensationalism. No, it is suppressed because it clearly delineates an unprecedented crisis in the Church following Vatican II which the reformers of our holy religion dare not publish. Our Lady did not fear to show the children a vision of Hell to impress upon them the seriousness of the hour, yet these apologists for the suppressers of the Third Secret text argue that the Church hierarchy ius wiser in such matters. This is an insult to Our Lady.

            A few more points. The Third Secret Vision unambiguously describes the killing of a Pope by an army of men firing bullets and arrows. The failed attempt on Pope John Paul II’s life in 1981 does not remotely fit this description and yet it is accepted by all as the true interpretation. Well, maybe Our Lady made a mistake, eh? Further, the overflowing of the waters over the earth that sweep many to their death can just as easily, and much more likely, be understood as referring to the waves of filth and immorality that have swept across the earth since 1960, to the extent that our post-Christian world is now more hedonistic than the pre-Christian world. It makes perfect sense and fits better with the facts, not to mention the reason for the Church’s existence on earth, which is to save souls by preaching the truth. Which is worse, the killing of bodies or the killing of souls? The answer is clear, as is the tragedy of our times. Islamic terror and global wars are childs play in comparison with the eternal loss of souls, many of them clerical.

            I could go on but I think I have said enough to demonstrate that Michael Hesemann’s work effectively robs the Fatima Message and Secret of its essentially supernatural content by fixating minds on earthly questions and earthly punishments. There are other writers like him, sadly, who have bought into the party line coming from the Vatican right now. Tragic indeed!

          • Mr. Skojec: Mr. Hesemann’s reply to EditorCT, a vicious calumniation of Father Gruner RIP (“Of course I did not waste my time with Nicholas Gruner…”), should be enough to demonstrate to you, quite clearly and forcefully, that you have made a serious error in judgment by publishing his opinions and finding “valuable” his perspective. His perspective is nothing more than a regurgitation of the conciliar party line, despite his alleged “skepticism.”

          • When one finds points of agreement with those whose ideas they most vigorously oppose, the smart and self aware take notice.

            I published his interview with Dr. Hickson without any pre-cognition whatsoever of his later comments. Nor have I read all the comments here. The way I see it, men rise or fall based on their merits and our readers are not children. If he has said things here in the comment boxes that lead you to the conclusion that he should not be listened to, that’s all part of honest discourse and the pursuit of truth.

            We take certain risks here, Mr. Ingram, because we have faith in all of you that you are resourceful enough to sift wheat from chaff. I hope that this faith is not misplaced.

      • Madame Editor,

        It’s nice to see you on this side of the pond, albeit under trying circumstances. You should pop over here a little more often.

        Btw, how did the conference go? I know CTS was down last weekend.

        In Christ the King,

        Margaret USA

        Reply
  3. To those who keep saying that Russia has been converted, we must ask: is converted to what?
    Russia should be converted though the Immaculate Heart of Mary but, as far as we know, the only few Russians who are devoted to the Immaculate Heart of Mary are Catholics ones, both eastern and western rite. Indeed, the catholic doctrine on the Immaculate Conception is seen as some kind of heresy by the Russian Orthodox Church.

    Reply
    • Dr Hesemann says : “Our Lady of Fatima promised the conversion of Russia, which indeed took place.”
      Which conversion?
      The othodoxs stubbornly refuse the Pope’s authority and their hierarchy has no goodwill for the russian catholics.
      The conversion of a people cannot be equated to the fall of a political system

      Reply
      • Yes, indeed. Russia has not been mentioned by the pope and the whole hierarchy PUBLICLY co-celebrating it across the globe.(signing a letter agreeing with the pope is deficient).

        GOD WANTS THE WHOLE WORLD TO KNOW THAT THE MOTHER OF GOD IS TO BE GIVEN THE CREDIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF RUSSIA, and RUSSIA HAS GOT TO KNOW THAT SHE HAS BEEN CONSECRATED! How can that happen if there is no mention of Russia, pray tell.

        ( analogy:if a bishop is going to consecrate a particular church HE DOESN ‘T GO TO IT AND SAY HE IS CONSECRATING ALL THE CHURCHES IN THE DIOCESE INSTEAD OF THAT PARTICULAR CHURCH).

        Also, a few Decembers ago the Russian O. Church IN SOLEMN SYNOD WITH THE PATRIARCH PROCLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A UNIVERSAL PRIMATE FOR THE ENTIRE CHURCH. (i.e. no need for a pope for the whole Church) ! Hardly evidence that it has been done.
        What has been done can have still been accepted by Heaven BUT WITH ONLY PARTIAL RESULTS.
        We have not seen an era of Peace, but we DO see we are fast approaching WWIII throughout the world. already started here and there, Pope Francis notices.
        Our Lord appeared to Sr Lucia complaining that his shepherds had not done what His Mother asked of them and warned about what happened to the French monarchy when His request to have the king order the bishops to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart was ignored for a century implying the same thing might happen to the Roman popes.at happened to the monarchy (we’ll always have a pope, just maybe NOT IN ROME!) This warning , came just before WWII, if memory serves or during it.
        (The papacy began in the Holy Land and could return there or somewhere else (Russia?)
        (

        Reply
  4. I cannot agree with several aspects of Dr. Hesemann’s work, at least based on my reading of the evisceration made of the “official” position by Chris Ferrara and others since 2000. Yet he has worked with the sources so he must be listened to.

    Once point does need to be made though. He is adamant that the full text has been released. How can he maintain that when even Cardinal Bertone had to admit on live Italian TV that there was a second envelope with a second text which has been deemed (by whom? when? for what reason?) “inauthentic”?

    Reply
    • I believe (based on my reading of the above) that Dr. Hesemann’s thesis is that the secret itself has been published in full, but not the explanation Our Lady gave to Lucia to go along with it.

      Reply
      • Ah ok. If the powers that be have deemed one text “inauthentic” then they are not lying when they say they have published the whole thing.

        But who is to say if it is indeed “inauthentic”? Dr. Hesemann cannot say, because he has not read it. Possession is the whole law in this case.

        Reply
        • Remember the Vatican’s press release on Feb 8th 1960:
          “Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the WORDS the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them.”
          Where are the WORDS of the Virgin in the text released in June 2000? These are the words of Sr Lucia who described a vision.
          The text deemed “inauthentic” by John XXIII is precisely so: It contains the WORDS of our Lady who explains that vision. But it is so terrific for a Pope to read that it predicts “that the great apostasy (in the Church) will begin AT THE TOP”, according to what said Cardinal Ciappi about the Secret, that it has been classified false by the Pope John and, of course, by his successors too.

          Reply
          • And Card. Bertone didn’t lie (he only made a convenient “mental reservation”) when he spoke about the ‘”authentic text of the 3rd Secret”.
            Now we have to require the Vatican to release the inauthentic part of the 3rd Secret.

        • Some would argue that they are not lying when they say the text is not authentic, they actually believe the lie of Fr. Dhanis, it suits their liberal mindset which is a mindset of appeasement with error, Communism included.

          Reply
      • That is where his error lies and his thesis wrong. The explanation Our Lady gave to Lucia to go along with it, is part of the third secret. It is not something separate. The vision with the explanation make up the entire third secret. We know this from Lucia’s fourth memoir where she writes part of it with the words: “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc..” These spoken words “In Portugal..” and the “etc…” are part of the third secret.

        Reply
        • You are exactly right. Who would ever consider the vision to be the whole secret, but not its explanation? This, I believe, is the sort of mental reservation tactic used by certain people to exclaim that the whole third secret was published. They can say that the whole thing was released as long as they don’t consider the explanation as part of the secret.

          Reply
        • Sister later explained when as a Carmelite that she meant by the dogma and Portugal that if the latter would not accept abortion and same sex unions, Portugal had nothing to fear. BUT THAT COUNTRY JUST PASSED A BILL IN FAVOR OF ABORTION….

          Reply
      • In other words, Michael Hesseman subscribes to the Fr. Dhanis theory that Sister Lucy made up the text from memories of her pious childhood rendering its authenticity questionable. That’s the Vatican line and it’s at the root of all the confusion over Fatima. Of course the text is perfectly genuine and is key to understanding the Third Secret vision. The problem is it exposes members of the high clergy to scrutiny over their part in a conciliar reform that has led to universal apostasy and that’s why they choose not to believe in it.

        Reply
        • Besides of the fact that you are obviously not even able to spell my name correctly, you also made wrong claims about my statement. I DO NOT BELIEVE that Sr. Lucia MADE ANYTHING UP. She wrote down the Third Secret on her knees after a vision of Our Lady and she was able to remember every element of it precisely and correctly. But I certainly do not believe that the Third Secret referred to the Second Vatican Council at all. It describes attacks on the Church, not the results of a reform.

          Reply
          • The mis-spelling of your name was due to tiredness. I do a lot of travelling on the roads every day in my job and that results in tiredness and resultant spelling mistakes when I type late at night.

            I have no interest in answering the rest of your comment as I think I have amply demonstrated that your work is not a true reflection on Fatima but a Modernist deviation from the real supernatural truth about Fatima.

          • “I certainly do not believe that the Third Secret referred to the Second Vatican Council at all. It describes attacks on the Church …”

            Then how do you explain the testimony of many who have read the Secret and tell us is talks about the “loss of faith in a whole continent”; about an apostasy “that starts at the top”, and so on.

            Please drop this Dhanis line. He was always hostile to Fatima and did not even read the primary sources.

    • The second short envelope must be the one St Pope John XXIII opened in August of 1959 in the presence of Cardinal Ottaviani, , the Pope’s Dominican theologian, and his personal secretary, Capovilla, who died at a very old age only couple of years ago. Each one read it and the Pope put it back into the envelope and each signed it on the outside of the envelope ,melted wax was dropped on the back and the papal ring impressed on it. THAT WAS RIGHT AFTER THE POPE SAID IT DID NOT APPLY TO HIS REIGN. It has never been seen again.
      However, this short enveloped letter was written by Sr. Lucia in January of 1944 AS TESTIFIED TO BY THE 2013 new biography of the Carmellte monastery of Sr. Lucia, translated into English in January 2015, circa p 240. It tells of a NEW VISION GIVEN BY OUR LADY of an Angel hurling a fiery spear head AT THE AXIS OF THE EARTH, JARRING IT OFF KILTER RESULTING IN HUGE EARTHQUAKES, TSUNAMIS, GREAT EXTREMES OF WEATHER, DROUGHTS, etc., greatly changing the geography of the earth. Since this vision came to her in 1943 and NOT in 1917, it was judged inauthentic.
      BUT IT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE SAW HAPPENING IN 2004 IN INDONESIA AND THE TSUNAMI THAT WIPED OUT SOME 250 K people around the east coast of India over to Indonesia, CAUSED BY A 9.1 EARTHQUAKE DEEP UNDER THE SEA. It was coming as a chastisement of sinful mankind. ( It also agrees with our military study of climate change arising from the earth’ being off its axis, by ever so little, and what we’ve been seeing ever since.
      I see no reason to deny this later apparition, since she had a number of them throughout her life.

      Reply
      • 7 years ago, there was a Conference on Fatima “The Fatima Challenge” held in Rome by early may. At the end of the meeting, the theses of Fr Gruner gained a huge momentum and the main contradictor, G. de Carli who coauthored with him Card. Bertone’s book “The Last Secret of Fatima” was obliged to surrender to Fr Gruner’s and A. Socci’s these that there remains a hidden text attached to the one released by the Vatican in 2000, certainly the text that John XXIII prevented releasing in 1960 which contained the WORDS of our Lady explaining the meaning of the mysterious vision shown to the kids.

        Reply
      • I don’t see the deaths of thousands of poor people along the coastlines in Indonesia as a result of God’s chastisement. When a great cataclysm wipes out real heretics and the like in posh Godless regions then I’ll believe it.

        Reply
  5. “Maybe for her, the soldiers which appeared behind the Cross and shot bullets and arrows on the Holy Father and the bishops and faithful were not assassins but spiritual attacks…” The use of “arrows” in attacking the Bishop in White is puzzling, but in Genesis 21:20, Ishmael, though whom Islam claims its descent from Abraham, is described as an archer.

    Reply
    • And in some of the terrorist instructions from Isis they suggest bows and arrows as easier to smuggle in and get past checkpoints. that gave me pause, keeping mind the vision the children saw. Sometimes God works both literally and figuratively. So spiritual attacks AND physical attacks. Both present.

      Reply
  6. As noted, it does make sense that the third secret was revealed, but the explanation given by Our Lady was not.

    A few things: If Our Lady orders the message to be revealed, no amount of post-conciliarism where “oh golly, we shouldn’t offend people” should stop this. Why fear this? She said her Immaculate Heart would triumph. All of these Popes, including John Paul the Small, did not have faith in Our Lady because they thought they could judge the situation better and then disobey Her. Some, like John XXIII, can explicitly disobey Our Lady and be canonized: let that sink in, a “saint” can disobey the Mother of God. Such holiness… And this is further proof that the canonization process is in shambles right now.

    But anyway…

    Worse still, if the 1984 consecration does not mention Russia, and not all the bishops joined the consecration, then it’s not what Our Lady wanted. Yet, all of the imperfect consecrations done over the last several decades always have good effects.

    But notice still what Our Lord said to to sister Lucia: the Pope will follow the King of France, and that they will consecrate Russia but it will be too late. This was not a “it could happen” but, “this WILL happen.”

    The last King of France followed through by consecrating France to the Sacred Heart but the French Revolution killed him and France descended into terror. Hence, a future Holy Father will consecrate Russia, and then be killed as the Church is engulfed in terror – just like the third secret of Fatima states. Again, Our Lord said the prelates will follow the King of France – the time of preventing this outcome was over. The King consecreted France, but he was killed and France was plugned into terror.

    I think the same thing may happen to the Church by the year 2029. Why? Because 1929 was the cut off date to consecrate Russia before it will be too late. 100 years to the day after the previous King was warned to consecrate France, terror descended and the French King would be later killed. Hence, if June 13 1929 was the final warning of Our Lord – who makes the parallel with the King of France Himself – then 2029, and the years to follow, may be filled with terror.

    The assassination attempt on John Paul the Imprudently Canonized was NOT a part of the third secret. It was a warning to do as Our Lady wanted. It was a foreshadowing of a future Pope who be killed. John Paul II was warned in 1981 with the assassination attempt on May 13th, the day of the first apparition. He was warned because he and the others were ignoring Our Lady. Later, he attempted a consecration, but his cowardice led to its failure. This warning, like the ones previous (e.g. WWII, the 1929 warning, and of course Fatima itself) were all ignored and in some instances unsaintly men just could not get past their weakness to follow through.

    Reply
    • St. Peter denied Our Lord three times…let’s be more charitable in our fevered words here about saints and popes please.

      Reply
    • Amos

      You’re absolutely right, Pope John Paul II was imprudently canonised. In fact his canonisation was a scandal for several reasons. The Church will one day have to revisit this and other such rash ceremonies, I’m certain of that.

      Reply
  7. When the Mother of God herself says “converted”, she means converted. Not any of this ridiculous talk of the collapse of communism being a conversion, the resurgence of the schismatic Russian church as a conversion. To the Holy Virgin, conversion can only mean: total and complete submission to Christ and His body, the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

    Reply
  8. Dr Hesemann claims “Our Lady of Fatima promised the conversion of Russia, which indeed took place. But unfortunately Communism still exists in North Korea and China as well as in the dominating ideology of the West. The sad truth is that, although Russia converted, although we became witnesses of the greatest miracle in history, the West lost its faith. Now we have to pray for the conversion of Western Europe and the U.S.!”

    The Catholic Church is the sole ark of salvation and, excepting invincible ignorance, conversion to the one true religion is necessary for the salvation of souls. This truth has been defined three times ex cathedra ─ the Fourth Lateran Council, the Bull Unum Sanctam and the Bull Cantate Domino.

    “The Most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her.” (Cantate Domino)

    The Russian Orthodox Church rejects various Catholic doctrines, for example: Papal primacy; the Catholic Church teaching on divorce and remarriage; the Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son together, not simply from the Father; Catholic doctrine on Purgatory; and the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Additionally, contraception is tolerated and has become widespread in recent times.

    The antipathy to Catholicism was once again demonstrated at the Orthodox ‘Holy and Great Council’ which concluded on June 26, 2016. The SSPX reported: “More alarming for Catholics is the (Council) document’s condemnation of “proselytism, uniatism, or other provocative acts of inter-confessional completion.”

    So, it cannot be said that Russia is converting let alone that it “indeed took place,” Russian Orthodoxy is both schismatic and heretical. Even an irrelevant claim that the Russian people are embracing Orthodoxy would lack credibility. There is no ‘religious revival’ in Russia. Stalin ‘revived religion’ when the Nazis attacked the Soviet Union in 1941, enlisting the Russian Orthodox Church as an ally to arouse patriotism. Putin, it is claimed, has done much the same, closely collaborating with KGB/FSB agent Patriarch Kirill who described the Putin era as “a miracle of God.”

    There is a similarity with Hitler’s Reichskirche: a ‘state church’ loyal to Nazism and subordinate to the state. Kirill’s counterpart in the Riechskirche was Reichsminister of Church Affairs Hanns Kerrl. Whilst the Russian Orthodox Church, a state organ, identfies with Russian Nationalism, the German Reichskirche, a state organ, identified its Positive Christianity with National Socialism.

    Dr Hesemann needs to reconsider a number of aspects of the Fatima message. First the nature of the chastisement. “Tell
    them Father, that many times, the Most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation.” (Sr Lucia to Fr Fuentes).

    Second, the Consecration. (Sr Lucia to Fr Caillon head of the Blue Army in France): “The Pope must choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and Consecration of Russia.”

    Time is still left to join the SSPX Rosary Crusade (15 Aug 2016 ─ 22 Aug 2017) as a spiritual preparation for the 100th anniversary of the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima. The intentions indicated by Our Lady herself are:
    1. To establish the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
    2. To pray for the triumph of the Immaculate Heart.
    3. To pray that the pope and all the bishops of the Catholic world consecrate Russia to the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.
    And an additional intention of the Superior General:
    4. To pray for the protection of the Blessed Virgin Mary for the Society of St. Pius X and all its members in addition to all the religious communities of Tradition.

    JMJ

    Reply
    • “The Most Holy Roman Catholic Church firmly believes, professes, and
      preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not
      only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a
      share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which
      was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are
      joined with Her.” (Cantate Domino)”

      ….**cough-cough** …that includes you too (SSPX).

      Reply
      • *cough-cough* Excuse me…

        If the SSPX is “schismatic” as you say, then they’re the only “schismatics” who pray for Pope Francis at every Mass, Rosary, Benediction (Oremus pro Pontifice Francisco…) etc.

        I guarantee that REAL schismatics don’t pray for Pope Francis.

        Reply
        • Irrelevant. They are not united with Rome. And ‘The Resistance’ even more so… The FSSP exist for a reason..because consecrating bishops is a no no. You don’t handle problems outside the Church, you handle them from within. ..Google: Martin Luther, lol..

          Reply
          • Sorry, but they’re just as Catholic as you or me. Have to go to Divine Liturgy now. See you later.

          • I don’t understand. You said in your first reply that the SSPX is “not united with Rome” yet in your second reply you said: “I didn’t say they’re not Catholic.” In order to be Catholic, one must be in communion with the Holy See (Rome). So if the SSPX is Catholic, ergo they are united with Rome.

          • I meant in appearance and action. Sorry. I’m very intrigued by the Divine Liturgy by the way ; )

          • Catholics are allowed to attend SSPX without incurring any sin. I was told it was licit to attend but not advisable.

      • Sorry wrong reply. It was meant for Nick. That was a low blow. Picture a sealed vision of any of today’s Novos Ordo Mass celebrated with communion in hand while our Lord is being stomped across due to this horrific practice. And imagine that you could give this vision to any of the saints, doctors and mystics from the 16th century through 20th of your choosing. Literally any!

        And now repeat the same process with SSPX Mass (which unlike sedes pray for the pope) and give this vision also to the same saint of your choosing.

        Now your life hangs on the line and you are putting all your trust that they will get this one right. The million dollar question is which one do they think is Catholic and which one they think looks less like one. You placed your bets on Novos Ordo, because no sane man attached to tradition is oblivious to the fact there would not be any today (apart from the catacombs) or that Summorum Pontificum would come out if it wasn’t for the SSPX.

        How’s the future looking for you? **cough-cough**

        And I am not even in SSPX, but give brothers credit where credit is due.

        Reply
      • On November 13, 2005, Cardinal Dario Castrillón Hoyos, Prefect of the Congregation for the Clergy and President of the Ecclesia Dei Commission, explained to the Italian television network Canale 5: “We are not confronted with a heresy. We cannot say in correct, exact, precise terms that there is a schism.

        “Furthermore one might note that in the sermon he gave during the episcopal consecrations on June 30, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was anxious to tell the faithful precisely what his intention was in performing that act: ‘You must understand that we do not want, for anything in the world, that this ceremony be a schism. We are not schismatics. If an excommunication was pronounced against the bishops of China, who separated themselves from Rome and put themselves under the Chinese government, one very easily understands why Pope Pius XII excommunicated them.

        ‘There is no question of us separating ourselves from Rome, nor of putting ourselves under any foreign government whatsoever, nor of establishing some sort of parallel Church as the Bishops of Palmar de
        Troya have done in Spain. They have elected a pope and formed a college of cardinals. It is out of the question for us to do such things. Far from us be this miserable thought of separating ourselves from Rome. On the contrary, it is in order to manifest our attachment to Rome that we are performing this ceremony. It is in order to manifest our attachment to Eternal Rome, to the Pope, and to all those who have preceded these Popes who, since the Second Vatican Council, have unfortunately thought it their duty to adhere to grievous errors which are demolishing the Church and the Catholic Priesthood.’ ”

        Anyone who might find it paradoxical to hear Archbishop Lefebvre reject the term “schism” during the very ceremony of episcopal consecrations would be well advised to read what Rev. Fr. Héribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap. wrote in his Moral Theology, no. 432.1 (The Newman Bookshop, Westminster, MD, 1945): “A
        schismatic is someone who, as a matter of principle, does not want to be subject to the pope…, but someone who simply refuses to obey the pope is not schismatic, even if it is for a long time.”
        JMJ

        Reply
        • I understand all of that. And I am very sympathetic to the cause of the SSPX. But the FSSP exist for a good reason. And you don’t handle problems with the Church by going outside the Church, you handle them from within. You carry your cross, offer it up, and work from within.

          As a convert to Catholicism, I see issues like this much more clearly. And going rogue and doing your own thing is protest, makes you a protest-ant. Plain and simple. You don’t have to reject doctrine and dogma to be a classic protestant. Just questioning the judgment and then rejecting said judgement is to reject the divine authority given to the throne of St. Peter.

          And the fact that there’s now off-shoots like The Resistance, only makes the case even more absolute. Protest-ant sects always splinter off into more rigid factions when the original begins to speak of re-unification.

          And then there’s this…

          https://realromancatholic.com/2013/07/14/fr-john-emerson-fssp-speaks-on-the-original-sspx-break-with-rome/

          Reply
          • Nick

            Best not write on the subject of the SSPX as you clearly don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. We’ve heard all this non-wisdom before and it’s all rubbish. You say you’re a convert so I’m cutting you a bit of slack on your ignorance of the SSPX. And please, don’t quote daft websites like realromancatholic. Anyone can call themselves a real Roman Catholic and put forward theologically illiterate arguments, but it doesn’t make them Catholic or truthful.

      • Nick
        No, it does not include the SSPX because that institution is not schismatic. Pope Francis could not have extended the power to absolve or the power to witness marriages to SSPX priests if the institution was outside the Church. Indeed, the Pope wrote to the authorities in Argentina not long ago insisting that the SSPX be recognised as a Catholic institution. You really should do your research before writing nasty things about good people ….**cough-cough**.

        Reply
  9. Sometimes we can lose sight of the fact that God’s ways are not are ways, but we know by faith and by history that God’s plan for the salvation of souls by the Mystical Body of Christ will continue until His coming again. What has always trouble me, somewhat, is the circumstances surrounding the publication of the third secret, and the fact that Pope Benedict XVI cited as his source of knowledge about Fatima a man who was a sceptical about the authenticity of Lucy’s messages. His name is E. Dhanis. The comment of Cardinal Bertone in the 2000 document that “the decision of His Holiness Pope John Paull II to make public the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima breingts to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil….” Really! Also, in his theological commentary, Pope Benedict XVI talkes about the “visions” of the little children in a way that undermines the fact that Our Blessed Mother actually showed the hell, as it exists. Many saints and blessed have actually been in hell to report its reality. Saint Faustina and Blessed Josefa Mendez, to name two in our time.

    Reply
  10. The “great monarch” Vladimir Putin:

    “Unlike many functionaries – and I was not one – from the party point
    of view, I was a rank and file member, I did not throw away my party
    ID, I did not burn it,” said the president, adding that “the Communist
    Party of the Soviet Union collapsed, but my ID is lying somewhere
    there.”

    “I quite liked, and still do, the Communist and
    Socialist ideas. If we look at the Code of the builder of Communism,
    which was broadly circulated in the Soviet Union, it is very much like
    the Bible. It is not a joke, there is in fact a similar passage in the
    Bible,” the president said.

    The Code proclaims very good ideas: equality, brotherhood, happiness, the president said.

    https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_society/2016/01/25/putin-says-he-likes-communist-ideas-echoing-bibles_562263

    Code of the Builder of Communism:

    https://img1.etsystatic.com/139/1/6270052/il_570xN.985136557_fb45.jpg

    Reply
  11. This gentleman says the Anglicans are in Apostolic Succession. Not according to Leo XIII and Popes up until now. As for the Dogma of the Faith being preserved in Portugal, that seems a stretch at the present time.

    Reply
    • Well Our Lady did tell them she would take them to Heaven soon, so it is actually kind of surprising it took so long.

      Reply
    • It is not strange at all.
      There is a five year waiting period after the death of the individual before the process can even begin (down from fifty before John Paul’s “reforms”). Then a petition is sent to Rome to get permission to proceed. Upon approval the diocese where the individual died begins research into the life, work and writings of the individual. It is called a tribunal and is
      rather a legal matter to determine the heroic sanctity of the “Servant of God.” Testimony is taken regarding the life and virtues of the candidate from those who knew her.
      When the diocesan tribunal is done, and the bishop of the diocese determines a positive judgement, the documentation is sent to Rome. Sister Lucia’s cause had 15 crates of documentation sent to Rome. The Congregation for the Causes of Saints begins their investigation, reviewing what has been forwarded to them and starting their own investigation. If their investigation determines a life of heroic virtue and the candidate is approved by the Pope they are recognized as Venerable.
      Then it is in God’s hand entirely. There is the issue of miracles. One spontaneous healing obtained through the intercession of the candidate is required for Beatification and another for canonization. Lucia might never be beatified, let alone canonized (although I think that unlikely).
      It took Jacinta and Francisco almost one hundred years to get through the process, and it almost didn’t happen because of their extreme youth. The question was whether children could consciously practice a life of heroic virtue at all. Once that possibility was acknowledged it still took forty years.
      Lucia has barely begun.
      No rush.
      Pray to God through her intercession for your necessities.

      Reply
    • Not really, they died many decades before Sister Lucy and their bodies were found to be incorrupt when exhumed in 1957. The simple answer is their Cause was prepared and ready, Sister Lucy’s is not.

      Reply
  12. At the bottom of this thread, Hesemann claims that Anglicans ” … separated from Rome for political, not doctrinal reasons and still are in Apostolic succession.”

    This is well beyond unbelievable. Given that this flatly contradicts the entire history of the Anglican communion, its doctrinal statements and numerous statements of the Magisterium, let alone the witness of the thousands of Catholic martyrs of the British Isles and the hands of the protestant heretics, it is evident that Hesemann has no credibility whatsoever as a historian nor as a Catholic intellectual.

    His views on Fatima are worthless given that his knowledge of Church history is so poor that he doesn’t even accept the most basic facts about the nature of the Protestant Rebellion.

    Reply
  13. I truly believe as a born & raised catholic, It’s by the grace(s) & very precise privilege that God gives to the true believer(s) an even more precise depth in faith, the desire to & for truth. MARTIN BLACKSHAW, GREAT STALIN, MARGARET, & EDITOR-CT Thanks for representing the truth. EDITOR-CT a NOBODY!! God does his work from one NOBODY to another, it’s my privilege to Thank you. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7f604d6542de49fc63721a75399b5bd50c6fdc426dc23ce1e70d48a360eead3d.jpg
    [email protected]

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...