Editor’s Note: Marco Tosatti, Italian journalist and Vatican expert, wrote in Italy’s La Stampa concerning Dr. Maike Hickson’s recent article on Fr. Ingo Dollinger, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Third Secret of Fatima. Dr. Hickson then reached out to Tosatti — himself an author of a book about Fatima — who agreed to the following interview.
Maike Hickson (MH): You have written already in 2002 a book on the Third Secret of Fatima, entitled Il Segreto Non Svelato (“The Unrevealed Secret”). The title itself indicates that you had already then come to the conclusion that the full Third Secret of Fatima was not published in June of 2000. Is this true? Do you believe that the text that was actually published in 2000 is an authentic part of the Third Secret of Fatima, and if yes, why?
Marco Tosatti (MT): Yes. I think that what we have read is authentic; it seems to remind us that Sister Lucy in person acknowledged the authenticity of the pages we have seen. And precisely from what we have seen we can still have some doubts.
MH: What are the main reasons why you came to the conclusion that the full Third Secret has not yet been revealed?
MT: In the document we have seen, at a certain point the narration stops with an “et cetera.” First, it seems strange to me that the Virgin would use these words. And then we have never seen the part of the Secret to which the “et cetera” is related.
Then there is the problem of the envelopes; it would be too long to enter in this issue now, but there are problems either with the measure of the envelopes sent from Portugal to Rome, and then with the envelope on which Pope John XXIII wrote his personal comment on the Secret, after having read it.
And then there is a conversation had by a scholar, Solideo Paolini, with Archbishop Capovilla, who was the personal secretary of Pope John XXIII. Solideo Paolini declared:
“I met Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla on July 5th 2006 in Sotto il Monte [name of a town] at his house. Since this very first meeting, during our private conversation, he made me implicitly but unequivocally understand something about the existence of two texts, or at least about certain things not being revealed regarding the Third Secret. When I asked him the question [about the Secret], he literally answered: ‘No, look, since it was officially revealed, I must abide by what was declared in the official documents, even if I may know something more.’ And at that point, when he said those words ‘even if I may know something more,’ he smiled ironically. Since I was there, I was able to see from his gestures that it was clear: there is something more than what was revealed during the Holy Year 2000 [by the Vatican]. But what Archbishop Capovilla said to me during a phone call was an even more dead giveaway. When he sent me his answers [by mail to questions I had sent to him], I called him on the phone, and he gave me the answer to a question of mine which literally was: ‘So, Your Excellency, as regards the two dates in which Pope Paul VI (would have) read the Third Secret, March 27th 1965 and June 27th 1963, which are confirmed by different sources, are they both correct because, in fact, there exist two texts regarding the Third Secret?’ I asked him this point-blank. He remained silent for a moment, thinking about it, and then he said to me, literally: ‘Precisely so (Per l’appunto)’. This is the most explicit confirmation that anyone could give.”
These words seemed to me a confirmation of what I had written in my book.
MH: You yourself reported recently on my own report about Father Ingo Dollinger who claims that then-Cardinal Ratzinger told him that he did not publish the whole secret. Would you have any possible explanation as to why they did not publish the full text? Could there be some kind of mental reservation involved?
MT: I will tell you what the personal secretary of Saint John Paul II [Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz] told me once, when I asked about Fatima. He answered: “The problem is to understand what the Virgin said, and what Sister Lucy said.” My personal opinion is that all the problems related to Fatima, the Popes, the Vatican are centered on this question. Did Sister Lucy add, even involuntarily, something to the message? And what? I think that is the element which has made so many people in the Church wary about the global phenomenon.
MH: Do you yourself consider it important still for us Catholics today to find out the full truth about the Third Secret?
MT: Yes, of course. When you have a revelation supported by such facts….
MH: What is your own finding about the possible content of that part of the Third Secret that is still unpublished?
MT: Really, I have no idea.
MH: Do you have any idea of how we could achieve that Rome finally releases the full secret?
MT: I think that, as far as the Holy See is concerned, the problem is closed. I do not expect in my lifetime to see anything more on the part of the Vatican.
Dr. Maike Hickson, born and raised in Germany, studied History and French Literature at the University of Hannover and lived for several years in Switzerland where she wrote her doctoral dissertation. She is married to Dr. Robert Hickson, and they have been blessed with two beautiful children. She is a happy housewife who likes to write articles when time permits.
Her articles have appeared in American and European journals such as Catholicism.org, LifeSiteNews, The Wanderer, Culture Wars, Catholic Family News, Christian Order, Apropos, and Zeit-Fragen.
Why do Popes, and anyone else who actually read the Third Secret of Fatima, feel compelled to secrecy when Our Blessed Lady asked for it to be revealed in 1960? Is their obligation to the Pope of the day seen as more important than compliance with the will of Christ’s Mother (& ours) or are they all in Satan’s grip? Their collective complicity in this disobedience would lead one to believe that they are all Satan’s men – even the canonised & blessed.
I suspect it is for reasons similar to those why prelates covered up clerical child abuse – they are more concerned about protecting the reputation of the institution of the Church than they are concerned about doing what is right.
I don’t know when John XXIII read the secret and whether it was before or after he had decided to call a Council. However if he had already made his decision and the message did warn of a “bad council”, then one can understand the human inclination to want to hush it up. It would not be right, but it would be understandable.
The problem with allowing for human frailty is that the Pontiff is supposed to be guided by the Holy Ghost and therefore prevented from making errors in regards to passing on the Truth as taught by Jesus & later His Apostles. Meddling with the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, the Sacraments & not passing on the faith through catechesis is not in keeping with his Office. It was reported that on his deathbed he shouted “stop the Council, stop the Council” but of course no-one took any notice at that stage.
The Pope is infallible only under certain conditions. If those aren’t met, then infallibility doesn’t come into play.
This has got nothing to do with infallibility.
That is true. But whatever part of the message “may” have been withheld is not what Christ and His apostles taught. What they taught we already know, so let’s stick to that. We can’t go wrong if we do.
I think we need to keep a proper perspective on this.
It is their brazen disobedience to the Mother of God in not disclosing the Third Secret of Fatima at the time She requested it to be revealed that is exceedingly troublesome. From what one can gather it specifically refers to a bad council & apostasy at the top. Our Lady wanted us to know but the popes & hierarchy didn’t thereby putting themselves above Her. Neither have they met Her request to consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart and as a result of their disobedience we have had to endure a half century of carnage to our Liturgy of Ages, Sacraments etc. That is diabolical behaviour and in keeping with Fr. Amorth’s report that the Vatican reeks of Satan.
I agree that the consecration of Russia has not been made for reasons we do not know.
As for the contents of the third secret, all we have at best is speculation. We are all going on hearsay.
So whether the third secret has been revealed or not is neither here nor there now.
Given the state of affairs, what are we to do? The more we bemoan the state of affairs the more we let the devil win. We do the best with what we have and what we know for a fact now. And that really constitutes of 3 things:
2) Make sacrifices
The CURRENT postulator of the cause of the canonization of the children of Fatima, Sister Angela Coelho at a seminar in Indiana reported that ”Russia” was consecrated in 1984,… She has read the documents….
But if you look at the descriptions of the several consecrations, Russia was not mentioned. The world was mentioned and one said the Russian people. I don’t understand why the Popes avoided the very simple words of saying that we consecrate Russia.
That is not correct, and we have enough bad popes to prove it.
I did say “supposed” I don’t actually believe that to be true, but the Hierarchy (and most conservatives) keep this up as they cannot face the fact that the Holy Ghost was side-lined at Vatican II and hasn’t been listened to since. The dreadful debacle of the last Conclave, with blatant canvassing for votes and a woman whispering in Cardinal Schönborn’s ear to elect Jorge Bergoglio, is proof of Satan’s influence.
A woman whispering to Card. Schönborn?
Pls tell us more…
Cardinal Schönborn took advice from laity on Papal Vote @ voxcantor.blogspot.com.es
I dont think Vatican II was suppose to be started. The abuse scandals later happening, I think apart of se ret too. Why do you think parts of the VaticanHUSHED certain people, and popes up? Smoke if Satan had entered a little before 1960.
Yes, even back in the early days of Fatima the hierarchy’s disobedience to Heaven led to WW2 and communism spreading throughout the world. And it continues.
I have just been reading up on Pius XII’s attitude towards holding a Council and found this:
“Various reasons have been proposed for why Pius XII did not convene a Council. Some appeal to his age and state of health, and others to his psychological make-up, which would not have made it easy for him to deal with an institution and event like a Council.
According to Caprile, Pius XII brought the conciliar preparations to an end in 1951, and the
materials assembled over almost three years of investigation were deposited in an archive of the
Vatican. There they remained until 1959, when the Antepreparatory Commission for Vatican II,
learning of their existence, gained Pope John XXIII’s permission to review them.”
Does anybody know when Pius XII read the 3rd Secret of Fatima?
Most Fatima scholars are in agreement that Pius XII never opened the secret as the envelope(s) were still sealed when John XXIII decided to read in early 1960 (possibly February as the anonymous letter to media outlets stating that the “words” of the Virgin Mary would most likely never be revealed was dated February 8, 1960). John XXIII made the announcement about convening a council to a group of 20-25 cardinals at St John Lateran in January 1959. Someone please correct me if I am wrong.
Thanks. I just find it interesting that both Pius XI and Pius XII were considering “reconvening” the Vatican Council – even instructing a preparatory commission to begin its work in the case of the latter – but their plans were shelved. I had wondered if they had received divine assistance to prevent a damaging Council going ahead.
I’d heard it said that Pius XII was aware of the modernism that was creeping around amongst his bishops, not to mention infiltration of Nazi and Communist spies, and therefore didn’t think having a Council at the time was a good idea solely because he was distrustful of his bishops and suspected a number of them of being heretics. I wish I could recall where that was… I’ll have to go look it up.
To be aware of the infiltrators and do nothing seems like utter negligence. He could have publicly excommunicated & defrocked them. But, of course, no pope has severely dealt with the deviant priests, religious, bishops, cardinals & those who quietly enabled them. It is quite inexplicable!
Satan has great powers but to concede that not one member of the Hierarchy can honestly say they called publicly for such action is truly diabolical. They have proven themselves to be not fit for purpose and should resign en masse, but none has the honesty & b..ls to do that.
That is what makes Modernism so insidious. These guys never give themselves away and speak in vague riddles, thus making it harder even for a good Pope to recognize and have them out themselves. They instead lie in wait, hidden, like vipers. And we might excuse Pius XII given he had a lot to deal with at the time.
Deacon. Below is a link to an excellent explanation about the desire to call a council prior to V2 being convened:
Thanks, IANS. However, I notice the Vatican is actually making public denials of this story now.
Of all the things they should have retracted and denied, but did not, it makes me wonder what worries them so much about these reports. Maybe Frank is feeling vulnerable.
I cannot but think that even now there is a reason this will all work out for good. Can anyone doubt that at some point it will all be revealed? And then all that the Virgin said will be seen to have been true. That can only bring good into the world.
Here is what we know.
The Queen of Heaven communicates with the humblest and most innocent among us, three children.
Ninety nine years later, we have yet to fulfill her request, which of course came from her Divine Son.
Conclusion: whatever and whenever the punishment, we so richly deserve it.
And given the mass murder of the unborn in their mothers’ wombs, the end of humanity appears to be our punishment.
Most of humanity, not all. Remember what Our Lady said at Akita.
I think she said I can no longer hold back the hand of God because your sins are too terrible. You idiots are about to have your butts kicked from one end of the world to the other (or words to that effect).
Humblest thanks Margaret.
Well, I wouldn’t put it that way…
Not exact….but pretty close.
““The problem is to understand what the Virgin said, and what Sister Lucy
said.” My personal opinion is that all the problems related to Fatima,
the Popes, the Vatican are centered on this question. Did Sister Lucy
add, even involuntarily, something to the message? And what?”
Ah yes, this old excuse. but pardon me, but would God spin the Sun in the Sky and convert entirely the Nation of Portugal and topple Communism and protect Portugal from World War and precisely predict the end and beginning of world wars and the reign and name of the yet-to-be Pope of the time, entrusted to the Vatican so that they themselves could verify these things only to have His chosen seer screw up and add her own words to the words of Mary explaining the Vision of the 3rd Secret? The math doesn’t add up here.
Especially considering Benedict XVI himself said on his last trip to Fatima that in the 3rd Secret there was seen something Beyond the Vision with spoken words that could only be from Our Lady.
But the Secret was so disturbing to the modernists and the ever optimistic John XXIII that in order to escape it and carry out their plans, they had to somehow REINTERPRET the words of our Lady and apply the good ol critical-school thinking applied to Scripture to assume that it didn’t mean what it said or that Sr. Lucia added things to embellish the Secret just as modernist scholars think occurred to the holy Bible texts?
Would the little seer who saw HELL itself and did penance to such an extent that even the Mother of God told her to take it easy, and who herself was so frightened of the Secret that she couldn’t bring herself to write it down without divine aid, would then go and dare to add her own opinions into the Secret??? Really???
Considering every rotten thing we see occurring in the Church these days, Sr. Lucia’s testimony that certain dark forces tried to bury has only been vindicated. No way would she have contaminated the Secret she under orders from God entrusted to His Church to reveal publicly.
Frankly if it’s so frightening we’ll probably all wish we hadn’t heard it, but let’s be frank here, this is simply disobedience towards God, and the only losers will be us.
Three posts on the Fatima secret. Besides prayer, what is the solution? Posting problem is fine, but what is our solution? Are we too small in number to do anything?
Thank you, Amos.
Even if we never hear the rest of the Secret, what would we be doing differently, if we
are already committed to acheiving sanctity? Once we have requested the authorities to release it, and continue to pray for that, our duty is done. The responsibility, and the personal consequences, including guilt for all those who do not convert because this information was withheld, is theirs.
Even one person in the hands of Our Lord and Lady are powerful. Look at Moses, Elijah ,St. John Vianney and Padre Pio. St Bernadette.When a persons desire is to do the Lord’s Holy will t hen the good Lord can do wonderful things. St. John Vianney and Padre pio are perfect examples.
Adhere to the Blessed Mother’s Requests: make the 5 First Saturdays, receiving Holy Communion (which many have recommended making it a union of the 5 First Friday’s included) and saying the Rosary daily, along with the frequent prayer by the Angel of Portugal……… ………..
“Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore You profoundly and I
offer You the most precious Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for all of the outrages, sacrileges, and indifference by which He is offended. And by the infinite merits if His Most Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of You the conversion of poor sinners.”
Whether or not the Church desires to reveal the entire secret has nothing to do with the foretold events as their unfold in reality. The Blessed Virgin was only giving us a heads up in the hopes that we and the Church would change our lives for the better. If the Church has decided not to reveal certain parts of the secret then they and we will have to suffer the consequences. From a practical point of view we should plan on the worst case scenario, that it is imminent and live our lives accordingly.
I fear this issue and the accusation that the Vatican is “withholding the third secret” (or some aspect of it) plays all too well into the long standing Protestant attacks that the Vatican changed scripture, committed murder, etc (no pun intended by “etc.”) Many have spent a lifetime defending the church from these vicious attacks and now we have the continued assertion the Vatican (or forces within it) are withholding the third secret.
No, look, since it was officially revealed, I must abide by what was declared in the official documents, even if I may know something more.’ And at that point, when he said those words ‘even if I may know something more,’ he smiled ironically. Since I was there, I was able to see from his gestures that it was clear: there is something more than what was revealed during the Holy Year 2000 [by the Vatican].
But, as IANS has resolutely and repeatedly observed, Pope Saint John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger (For some reason never personally identified but simply referred to as “The Vatican” as though that entire tiny country was speaking) said the entire third secret was being released.
So, we have a One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church that can not be trusted to tell the truth in certain instances because it is a gangster government not dissimilar to the American Gangster Government as described in this excerpt from an amasing speech to the national press club:
Dr. Edwin Vieira’s Presentation at the National Press Club, June 29, 2000
Realistic political science teaches that there are two, and only two, kinds of government. One, is what the ancient Romans called, “a res publica,” a public thing, a government for the people. Not necessarily a democracy, because ancient Rome was not a democracy. And not necessarily a republic, because the ancient Romans from time to time appointed dictators, with good reason. And one can even imagine an aristocracy or a monarchy that would put the public interest, the general welfare, the common good of every citizen, ahead of all narrow special interests. Well that’s one form of government.
The other is a government of, by, and for a self-selected, self-perpetuating, crew of elitists. This is not “a res publica,” a public thing. It is La Cosa Nostra, “our thing.” [audience laughter and applause]. That is, gangster government. And such is precisely the nature of what passes for the government today in Washington. And in the states, and the counties, and the cities. It’s just a different ‘family,’ depending on where you are.
IANS was born into the exoteric One True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church but he now finds himself a willing prisoner of the esoteric church and this third secret mess, one assumes, is just another example of the discontinuity that naturally occurs within continuity (paraphrase of Pope Benedict XVI)
IANS wishes he knew the friends-of-Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger so he could know the facts about the matter but he has been told the official lie will be maintained despite the obvious damage done to the reputation and credibility of Pope Saint John Paul II and Joseph Bishop Emeritus Ratzinger.
One wonders just how many other Pope Saints were officially lying in public to his lambs…
You’re getting all caught up on the wrong things. I will ask you again: what charism of the papacy prevents its occupant (or previous occupant, still living) from telling a lie?
All politicians lie. This is a truism universally accepted, I think. And the Vatican is nothing if not the oldest political institution on earth.
If a pope can contradict Christ’s words in the Gospels in his daily statements, why oh why are we to believe he may not deceive us when it comes to this?
My point here is not to insist that they DID lie, only that they COULD lie and it would change nothing in the substance of what we believe about the papacy.
The “charism of human nature” is what it is called. Think back to the writings of Dante and his publication of “Inferno,” although hard to read, many references were made of then current clergy occuping various depths of Hell, an analogy many would argue and articulate, but 500 odd years later, any differences in what Danta wrote and what’s been occurring in the Vatican, since Council II ?
Steve. We are not talking about Franciscus but a Pope who is Canonised.
Of course every man can potentially lie but to participate in a conspiracy to lie to and deceive the entire Church would seem a bit much for one Canonised.
Can you name any other Pope Saint who conspired to deceive his flock?
Far from IANS being caught up in the wrong things, he is the sole one asking the right questions about this deception/lie whereas the rest of Tradistan has already swallowed the lie as no biggie…
I’ve already said his canonization was imprudent.
But canonization in no way implies an impeccable life.
I don’t claim to answer for JPII, or for Benedict, or for Francis who has canonized the one (and would never canonize the other.)
They have to answer for themselves.
JPII’s personal life was probably fine, but he was a terrible administrator and a very weak pope, and even if he was basically orthodox, he never demanded it of anybody else.
Well as you know, Santo Subito is the new value. Look who did away with the centuries old canonization process and dispensed with the “devil’s advocate..” How bloody convenient.
Dear Cradle. If we count Liberius as a Saint (which we did for about a 1000 years) the first 54 Popes were all Saints and where was the D.A. back then?
One could argue that we were shagged-out after that fast Canonising start and we are just now showing the world how we have caught our breath.
Well, Not Spartacus, that is a very good point. Maybe that is why the D.A. office was established in the first place. It is about as good an idea to eliminate that office as it was to eliminate the order of Exorcist in the life of every priest. Bad, bad, bad ideas. Mmmm Hmmmm.
Dear Cradle. IANS would have preferred the D.A. remain along with the more miracles requirement but IANS wasn’t consulted about the changes
Note that canonizations have been undone. Just note.
Canonisations are subject to an annulment process?
what is IANS?
Dear Dragonfly. It is an acronym fo,r I am not Spartacus
Perusing through many of these excellent posts, the reference to a “bad council” began with Hohn Xxiiii “opening up the Church to fresh air, “ actually allowed the Smoke of Satan to enter. Further readings of “The Devil’s Final Battle,” provided further insights into the “Machievallian world” of the Vatican, with Soviet afents maskig as East European priests, many high-ranking prelates being memners of Italian Msaons, and the notorious Cardinal Bertone distorting facts about the Third Secret. One only has to go back to our Blessed Mother’s warnings at Fatima, then fast-forward to today, to see her words being fulfilled, BECAUSE her requests for ALL of the Church’s Cardinals and Bishops come together with the Holy Father to Consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart !
Even the Church has their own plethora of “spin-meisters !” The 100th Anniversary of our blessed Mother’s appearances in Fatima, are now a fw days less than a year away….May 13th, 2017 and wonder what may then occur ?
“What may occur”? Like the King Louis XVI who found no interest in consecrating his kingdom to the Sacred Heart of Jesus though Jesus required this in 1689, exactly 100 years before the Revolution began: He was jailed and beheaded 4 years later.
2017 is a crucial year for the Church.
Fatima was the trigger that personally made me coming back to the Faith.
The main thing I keep currently from it is what the Cardinal Ciappi, personal theologian of Pope JPII said, and it is terrible for us catholics: “The great apostasy in the Church will begin AT THE TOP.”
Who can deny that this prophecy is precisely and tragically what we are seeing unfolding under our eyes?
From my point of view (I’m Portuguese), the whole 3rd Secret has been published in the year 2000. Sister Lúcia called it “the third part of the secret” in the introductory sentence of
that text, which she sign it in the end. So there’s no more…
What hasn’t really been published yet is the rest of the 2nd Secret, which would let you understand the 3rd. When you ask them if the entire third secret was published, they can say ‘yes’ without lying. This is, in fact, a tricky matter of perspective…
I would ask them if there is more on the 2nd part of the Secret because that’s where the “etc.” belongs…
Be sure to see the You Tube video “Akita and the Fatima Secret” that includes recent footage of Sister Agnes Sasagawa in the beginning of the documentary, and read the book, “Defeating the Brotherhood of Death”. Also read “The Devil’s Final Battle “.
Regarding the full extent of the third secret is really a simple conclusion in my opinion. It would reveal to the entire world the destruction caused by the post-conciliar popes, their bishops and all the reforms. There can be no other reason. The modern popes consider the third secret to have scandalous consequences for the Church (scandalous in the sense that it would severely undermine them, the dreadful reforms, and cause mass division and ultimately schism), something that they have chosen to avoid at all costs. The third secret is the anti-aggiornamento of our times, never to be revealed.
Sia Lodato Gesù Cristo!
E Maria Immacolata!
[…] E siccome i vertici Cattolici in Vaticano
e i vertici ebraici che sono dentro al Vaticano…
conoscono bene la Mia Parola che dono oggi attraverso di te
e conoscono ancora più bene…
ciò che hanno omesso… modificato e tagliato riguardo alle Sacre Scritture…
ora che per Volere di Dio e « sotto la guida di Dio » sei libera di agire…
sono letteralmente terrorizzati per quello che potresti dire e fare.
Gesù a Conchiglia – 21 marzo 2016