Sidebar
Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

Lucia of Fatima, Part III: The Infamous Third Secret

Editor’s note: The following, commemorating the 100th anniversary of the apparitions at Fatima, is Part III of a four-part series by Jonathan and Clara Fleischmann. Parts I and II were originally published by Missio Immaculatae Magazine and are edited and reprinted here with the authors’ permission. Read Part IPart II, and Part IV.

Visits from Jesus and Mary

On December 2, 1940, Lucia wrote to Pope Pius XII:

I come, Most Holy Father, to renew a request that has already been brought to you several times. The request, Most Holy Father, is from our Lord and our good Mother in Heaven.

In 1917, in the portion of the apparitions that we have designated “the secret”, the Blessed Virgin revealed the end of the war that was then afflicting Europe, and predicted another forthcoming, saying that to prevent it She would come and ask the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart as well as the Communion of reparation on the first Saturday. …

Most Holy Father, this remained a secret until 1926 according to the express will of our Lady. Then, in a revelation She asked that the Communion of reparation on the first Saturdays of five consecutive months be propagated throughout the world, with its conditions of doing the following with the same purpose; going to confession, meditating for a quarter of an hour on the mysteries of the Rosary and saying the Rosary with the aim of making reparation for the insults, sacrileges and indifferences committed against Her Immaculate Heart. …

I take this opportunity, Most Holy Father, to ask you to bless and extend this devotion to the whole world. In 1929, through another apparition, our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, promising its conversion through this means and the hindering of the propagation of its errors.

Sometime afterwards I told my confessor of the request of our Lady. He tried to fulfill it by making it known to Pius XI. 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. [1]

In this letter, Lucia refers to three visits from Jesus and Mary that occurred at Tuy in 1925, 1926, and 1929.

On December 10th, 1925, the most holy Virgin appeared to her, and by her side, elevated on a luminous cloud, was a child. The most holy Virgin rested her hand on her shoulder, and as she did so, she showed her a heart encircled by thorns, which she was holding in her other hand. At the same time, the Child said:

“Have compassion on the Heart of your most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an act of reparation to remove them.” [2]

On February 15, 1926, the Infant Jesus appeared to Lucia again, saying:

“It is true, my daughter, that many souls begin the First Saturdays, but few finish them, and those who do complete them do so in order to receive the graces that are promised thereby. It would please me more if they did Five with fervor and with the intention of making reparation to the Heart of your heavenly Mother, than if they did Fifteen, in a tepid and indifferent manner[.]” [3] …

On June 13, 1929, Mary appeared again, saying:

“The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.” …

Later, in an intimate communication, Our Lord complained to me, saying:

“They did not wish to heed my request. Like the King of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be [too] late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars, and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer.” [4]

Controversy and Silence

On August 31, 1941, Lucia wrote to Fr. Gonçalves:

The bishop wrote me, telling me of a cross-examination by Dr. Galamba, and he ordered me to record everything else that I can remember relating to Jacinta for a new edition that they want to publish.

This order struck me in the center of my soul as a ray of light, telling me that the moment has arrived to reveal the first two parts of the secret and to add two chapters to the new edition: one on Hell and the other on the Immaculate Heart of Mary. … But will I also be able, at this time to keep quiet on this and speak only of things of less importance? I dread the questions that will be asked me about Hell. [5]

In her third memoir, Lucia relates the first and second parts of a three-part secret she received from Our Lady, with Sts. Jacinta and Francisco Marto, on July 13, 1917:

The first part is the vision of Hell.

Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire which seemed to be under the earth. Plunged in this fire were demons and souls in human form, like transparent burning embers, all blackened or burnished bronze, floating about in the conflagration, now raised into the air by the flames that issued from within themselves together with great clouds of smoke, now falling back on every side like sparks in a huge fire, without weight or equilibrium, and amid shrieks and groans of pain and despair, which horrified us and made us tremble with fear. …

The second part refers to the devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. [6]

The third part of the secret, which has come to be known (somewhat infamously) as the “Third Secret of Fatima,” was not recorded in any of Lucia’s memoirs. Rather, it was written down by Lucia and delivered to the bishop of Leiria-Fatima in a sealed envelope. On an outer envelope, which contained the sealed envelope, Lucia wrote in her own hand that the envelope could be opened only after 1960 by the Patriarch of Lisbon, Cardinal Cerejeira, or by the Bishop of Leiria, Monsignor da Silva [7].

On December 26, 1957, the postulator of the causes for the beatifications of Sts. Francisco and Jacinta interviewed Lucia in the Carmelite convent of Coimbra, to which Lucia had moved from the Dorothean convent of Tuy (with a brief stay at Sardão) in 1948. After this interview, which touched on a wide range of topics, including the message the three visionaries had received from Our Lady in 1917, the postulator, Fr. Augustin Fuentes, published a report, which was approved by the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, in which Fr. Fuentes reported the following words of Lucia (emphasis added):

Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. … [T]he punishment from Heaven is imminent[.] … I am not able to give any other details because it is still a secret. According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the secret, but they have chosen to not know it in order not to be influenced. This is the third part of the message of Our Lady, which will remain a secret until 1960[.] …

Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus, the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them. That which afflicts the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus is the fall of religious and priestly souls. The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell[.] …

Father, the Most Holy Virgin did not tell me [explicitly] that we are in the last times of the world, but She made me understand this for three reasons. The first reason is because She told me that the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin. And a decisive battle is the final battle where one side will be victorious and the other side will suffer defeat. Also from now on we must choose sides. Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility. The second reason is because She said to my cousins as well as to myself that God is giving two last remedies to the world. These are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies, which signify that there will not be others. The third reason is because in the plans of Divine Providence God always, before He is about to punish the world, exhausts all other remedies.

Now, when He sees that the world pays no attention whatsoever, then, as we say in our imperfect manner of speaking, He offers us “with a certain fear” the last means of salvation, His Most Holy Mother. It is “with a certain fear” because if you despise and repulse this ultimate means we will not have any more forgiveness from Heaven because we will have committed a sin which the Gospel calls the sin against the Holy Spirit[.] … Let us remember that Jesus Christ is a very good Son and that He does not permit that we offend and despise His Most Holy Mother[.] …

The two means to save the world are prayer and sacrifice. Look, Father, the Most Holy Virgin, in these last times in which we live, has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Holy Rosary. She has given this efficacy to such an extent that there is no problem, no matter how difficult it is, whether temporal or above all, spiritual, in the private life of each one of us, of our families, of the families of the world, of the religious communities or even of the life of peoples and nations, that cannot be resolved through the prayer of the Rosary[.] … Finally, devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Our Most Holy Mother, consists in considering Her as the seat of mercy, of goodness and of pardon and as the sure door through which we are to enter Heaven. [8]

Beginning that same year (1957), the Holy Office – later the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – ordered that all of the writings of Lucia, including the secret in custody of the bishop of Leiria, be sent to Rome. On top of that, nearly two years later, on July 2, 1959, the diocese of Coimbra issued a shocking denial of the words Lucia allegedly said in the interview with Fr. Fuentes (after they had been translated into multiple languages and were already published around the world), claiming in the name of Sr. Lucia that no such words were ever spoken by her! Fr. Fuentes was subsequently removed from his position as postulator for the causes of Sts. Francisco and Jacinta.

One hardly needs to be an aficionado of so-called “Fatimist conspiracy theory” to agree that this turn of events was odd, to say the least [9]. This is particularly true if one considers that nothing in the interview reported by Fr. Fuentes cannot be found elsewhere in Sr. Lucia’s letters and memoirs, many of which were written later, and all of which are accepted as authentic. Stranger still is the fact that the publication of the interview was approved by the Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Monsignor da Silva, the same who gave the Fatima apparitions the official approval of the Church on October 13, 1930. Moreover, the time lapse of two years between the time that the interview took place and the “official” reaction of the diocese of Coimbra suggests – even to the most sober mind – at least some form of intervention from a higher authority in the Church (for good or ill).

In a story that is well known, Pope John XXIII chose not to reveal the “Third Secret of Fatima,” which was in his possession, in 1960, and Pope Paul VI made the same decision in 1963. In the 1980s, before the Third Secret of Fatima had been officially revealed, Fr. Michel de la Sainte Trinité hypothesized (based on public and/or published statements of those who knew something of the content of the secret – including, of course, Lucia herself), that the Third Secret of Fatima was something like the following:

While ‘in Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved,’ in many nations, perhaps in almost the entire world, the faith will be lost. The pastors of the Church will fail gravely in the duties to their office. Because of their fault, consecrated souls and the faithful will allow themselves to be seduced in great numbers due to ruinous errors spread everywhere. This will be the time of the definitive combat between the Virgin and the demon. A wave of diabolical disorientation will sweep the world. Satan will infiltrate even the highest summits of the Church. Evil spirits will blind and harden the hearts of the pastors. Then God will leave them abandoned to themselves in punishment for their refusal to obey the requests of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This will be the great apostasy announced for the last times, the ‘false lamb,’ ‘false prophet,’ who betrays the Church for the benefit of the ‘beast’ according to the prophecy of the Apocalypse. Perhaps the Secret announces also one or another of the prophesied chastisements from Scripture pertaining to the ‘last times’? Perhaps it evokes the persecution the Holy Father will have to suffer when he ‘will return’ in order to ‘confirm his brethren’ and finally obey Our Lady’s requests. [10]

The opinion that the Secret of Fatima would include some reference to a “great apostasy” or some sort of a crisis in the Church was shared by many in the 1970s and 1980s, including the great Fatima historian and editor of Lucia’s memoirs, Fr. Antonio Maria Martins, S.J., who wrote in 1974 (emphasis added):

The reason that induced me to give this edition the title, The Secret of Fatima in the Memoirs and Letters of Sister Lucia, was the sad fact of observing that, in spite of repeated denials from competent religious authorities, books and pamphlets of apocalyptic conjectures on the Secret of Fatima continue to be printed, attributing words to Sister Lucia that she never wrote, nor even dreamed of. Two thirds of the Secret are found in this volume. The third part, the content of which has not yet been revealed, deals only with what is referred to as The Crisis of the Church. [11]

It is somewhat ironic that what Fr. Martins thought in 1974 was less sensational about the hypothetical content of the Third Secret of Fatima – namely, “The Crisis of the Church” – is precisely what is now considered the most sensational aspect of “Fatimist” claims regarding the hypothetical “full” content of the Secret, and what is most emphatically denied by several high-ranking Church officials [12]. Indeed, in terms of apocalyptic content, Fr. Michel’s “hypothetical version” of the Third Secret of Fatima is in substance the same as the official version [13], released in 2000, with which most people are now familiar, except for the fact that the “official version” includes only a description of the “symbolic vision,” containing no words of explanation or interpretation from either Lucia or the Blessed Virgin Mary. Clearly, this symbolic vision is an authentic part of the Third Secret, though “Fatimists” would argue that it may not be all of it. That this vision is part of the secret was already confirmed by Lucia in her third memoir – which, as we learned above, was written in 1941 – in which she relates the following vision of St. Jacinta:

Another time we went to the Lapa do Cabeço. Once there, we prostrated ourselves on the ground and said the angel’s prayers. Later Jacinta got up and called me, “Don’t you see many highways, so many roads and fields full of dead people trickling blood? So many people weeping with hunger, for they have nothing to eat? And the Holy Father praying in a church before the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And many people praying with him?”

A few days later she asked, “Can I say that I saw the Holy Father and all those people?

“No. Don’t you see that this is part of the secret? That way it will be discovered immediately.”

“All right. I won’t say anything then.” [14]

Despite accusations leveled by critics of the so-called “Fatimist network of conspiracy theorists” [15], it is hard to understand what is particularly more sensational about Fr. Michel’s version of the Third Secret as compared to the “official” version released in 2000, which, incidentally, no pope or cardinal has ever claimed was everything Lucia personally claimed that Our Lady revealed to Francisco, Jacinta, and herself, but rather only what the Church officially stipulated that Our Lady revealed to the children [16]. Indeed, the only point of substantial difference between the two “versions” of the Third Secret of Fatima is the part about Satan “infiltrating even the highest summits of the Church,” which is hardly sensational, and which in any case has been sadly confirmed throughout the history of the Church as a sober fact.

Regardless of whether or not any further elaborations on the “symbolic vision” of the Third Secret, attributable either to the Blessed Virgin Mary or to Lucia’s private interpretation, were ever in the possession of Church authorities at any level of the Magisterium, the undeniable fact remains that the “hypothetical” version of the Third Secret of Fatima contains no more and no less than the message Our Lady repeated to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa, in Akita, Japan, which is fully approved by the Church and therefore has a canonical status “equal” to that of Fatima, on October 13, 1973, exactly 56 years after the last message of Fatima and the Miracle of the Sun.

It will be a punishment greater than the deluge, such as one has never seen before. Fire will fall from the sky and will wipe out a great part of humanity, the good as well as the bad, sparing neither priests nor faithful. The survivors will find themselves so desolate that they will envy the dead. The only arms which will remain for you will be the Rosary and the Sign left by My Son. Each day recite the prayers of the Rosary. With the Rosary, pray for the pope, the bishops and priests.

The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres … churches and altars sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord.

The demon will be especially implacable against souls consecrated to God. The thought of the loss of so many souls is the cause of my sadness. If sins increase in number and gravity, there will be no longer pardon for them. [17]

The upshot of this is, of course, that while Lucia had to observe complete silence after 1960 regarding the Third Secret of Fatima, in obedience to the authority of the Church’s Magisterium, Our Lady did not.

Notes

[1] Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia (Second English Edition), ed. by Fr. Robert J. Fox and Fr. Antonio Maria Martins, S.J., Fatima Family Apostolate, Park Press, Inc., Waite Park, MN, 2002, pp. 385-386.

[2] Fatima in Lucia’s own words, Vol. I, ed. by Fr. Louis Kondor, SVD., Postulation Centre, Fatima, Portugal, 9th edition, 1995, p. 231.

[3] Ibid., pp. 232-233.

[4] Ibid., pp. 234-235.

[5] Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia (Second English Edition), p. 402.

[6] Third Memoir, Fatima in Lucia’s own words, Vol. I, pp. 104-108.

[7] Cf., Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone’s Introduction to the Vatican’s official dossier on the Fatima secret, The Message of Fatima, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2000.

[8] Quoted by Antonio Socci, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, Loreto Publications, Fitzwilliam, NH, 2006, pp. 97-101.

[9] Cf., ibid, in which Antonio Socci – whose integrity as a journalist has been acknowledged by Pope Francis himself – gives an even-handed and thoroughly professional journalistic exposition of the matter.

[10] Ibid., p. 152, footnote 259.

[11] Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia (Second English Edition), pp. 139-140.

[12] C.f., Antonio Socci, The Fourth Secret of Fatima.

[13] The Message of Fatima, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 2000.

[14] Third Memoir, Documents on Fatima & Memoirs of Sister Lucia (Second English Edition), p. 407.

[15] Joanna Bogle, “The boring Third Secret of Fatima”, The Catholic World Report, June 1, 2016.

[16] A Vatican communiqué issued February 8, 1960 gave the following reason for not publishing the Third Secret of Fatima that year (1960) as Lucia had requested: “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.” Since this is true of all Church-recognized private revelations, however, from those of St. Birgitta of Sweden in the 14th century to those of St. Faustina Kowalska in the 20th century, the reason why this should have precluded the publication of the secret that year remains unclear.

[17] Akita: The Tears and Message of Mary, ed. by Teiji Yasuda, O.S.V., transl. by John M. Haffert, 101 Foundation, Asbury, NJ, 1989, pp. 77-78.

116 thoughts on “Lucia of Fatima, Part III: The Infamous Third Secret”

  1. ” Either we are for God or we are for the devil. There is no other possibility. ”

    Is this not what we are experiencing, so many of us?
    Let us thank the Lord for this grace then, and seek comfort in our Lady and her Immaculate Heart.
    And let our hearts not be troubled. Let God do what God needs to, trust in His mercy and have awe in His righteousness judgment.
    Praise be Jesus Christ, our Sovereign King and all honor to our Queen.

    Reply
    • But we need to do our part. Being faithful to God. And speaking out against the corruption in the world and the within the Church.

      Reply
  2. It is my own personal, and therefore largely worthless, opinion that the actions of John XXIII and Paul VI in choosing not to reveal the Third Secret, in direct violation of the Blessed Mother’s wishes, were acts of faithlessness and worldliness and are, in large part, responsible for the current faithless pontificate with which we are afflicted. I’ll go further and say that the Vatican II disaster is directly tied to our shameful response to the Blessed Mother’s requests.

    Haven’t we learned yet that scorning a prophet of God always ends badly?

    Reply
    • You can add JPII and Pope Benedict to that list. I find it amazing at Fulda JPII said in 1980 “On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this: if there is 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, truly the publication of such a message is no longer something to be so much desired.”

      Really Holy Father? The faithful (and all people) shouldn’t know that due to sin a massive flooding of waters will kill millions of souls by the hour most of whom will be damned for no time to repent? I can’t imagine having such disdain or apathy for people that you would not warn them of this.

      Reply
    • Kiwi, interesting thoughts but you are condemning at least two Popes with your statement and also every Pope after that, who has not done as Sr Lucia is claiming Mary requested. I must ask why did Mary appear to a nun in Portugal with these requests and not directly to the Pope, and why if this is so important has it still not been done 100 years after Fatima?

      Reply
        • You’re truly on troll patrol 🙂

          This trolling makes me laugh although today has been a day of pray and fasting

          Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us

          Reply
          • I don’t understand Mr Peterman, if anything he is unfairly attacking me as a Troll , when if people take the time to read my comments they are not those of a Troll. I a motorbike also a practicing Catholic who says my Rosary

        • I am not questioning Gods will or Mary’s will, I am just asking myself the simple question why Mary’s request done, my starting point is the the Popes since Fatima have been God fearing men, men of good will. Pope Francis of course is a Pope that confuses me with his mixed messages and apparent contradiction to doctrine of the church.

          Reply
      • Kiwi is correct in his observation. Man’s motives even the Pope’s must be question. By not confronting their lack of action has caused the crisis we are in.

        Reply
    • The most charitable thing we can say is that those Popes did not get the graces they needed to reveal the secret. Possibility the faithful did not do enough in obeying Our Lady to give him the Grace to do what he needed to do. Remember that we need to pray for our clergy. It is a two way street.

      Reply
  3. So why have none of the Popes since Fatima done what our lady requested? None of them consecrated Russia to the Immaculate heart of Mary. And why was the secret never properly revealed?

    Reply
      • Also, the visions came after the miracle so perhaps they are regarded the way that Mélanie’s record of her own visions/messages from La Salette in 1879 (they were communicated in 1851). I also suspect that its probably odd to be Pope charged with guarding the deposit of faith (which cannot be added to) and being told that one must do a consecration ceremony because of what a young Nun is saying in Portugal (where the miracle associated with her claims happened more than 10 years prior).

        Reply
          • The last sentence is meant to qualify how strongly I hold to my no consecration thesis and the tie-in with Our Lady of Good Success (and Akita, for that matter). I’m stating that this is my best guess, but that I don’t think I have the whole picture.

        • This statement you make makes me think, why, if our Ladys message was so important, did the Pope himself not get contacted directly? ” I also suspect that its probably odd to be Pope charged with guarding the deposit of faith (which cannot be added to) and being told that one must do a consecration ceremony because of what a young Nun is saying in Portugal (where the miracle associated with her claims happened more than 10 years prior).”

          Reply
          • Louis XIV had a similar reaction to the request in 1689 to consecrate himself to the Sacred Heart as delivered to him by St. Margaret Mary Alacoque–thinking that the request should have come to him rather than through an unknown Nun. I also don’t think the popes think of themselves as denying Mary’s request. Some may not have believed the request was real (due to disagreements with “prophets of doom” i.e. the seers) and others, such as, JPII might have believed he didn’t have to 100% adhere to the exact demands. Immediately following the 1985 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart he was quoted by L’Osservatore Romano as praying to “enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding” https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4fae471dfb98a89839b936cd4ac1ed2510058da1b1faa9be5f2c8a6c0d75c4b1.jpg

            which indicates that he thought there was some people awaiting consecration after his consecration of the world. I can’t find the story immediately, but there was a Marian conference of some kind by Orthodox patriarchs soon after the consecration of the world and JPII is said to have thought that this was a sign that he had done all he needed to do.

          • Paul, it’s “Blessed Virgin Mary”. That’s what gives you away as the troll you are. Sound like a protestant to me, but who knows these days, you could sound like that (a protestant) and be in the hierarchy of the Church.

            don’t feed the trolls folks, Paul’s a troll.

          • It’s appears you are the Troll , Mr Peterson. What’s wrong with calling our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary? If you read the comments it was another person who used the phrase “BVM ” but I think you are cynical to imply that my questions and comments are those of a Troll.

        • Not doing the Consecration or not doing it properly according to our Lady’s requests out of fear to make USSR angry was utterly ludicrous and exposed the popes’ lack of courage and their weak confidence in Heavens.
          If Heavens required the Consecration, of course Heavens had all the means to prevent USSR becoming angry and endeavoring further persecutions of the USSR’s christians.
          In addition has anyone thought about the significance of the word Consecration for the stubborn and arrogant communist marxist ideologues of the Kremlin ?
          “Consecration? What’s this? To the Immaculate Heart of Mary? Ah, ah, ah, utterly hilarious !”

          Reply
        • The question to be asked, though, in response to your first paragraph, is what harm would have been done anyway? Even if you’re correct, it would surely have been a great idea – so why not do it anyway rather than risk God’s displeasure? If it was a simple toss up between offending God or the USSR……which should have been done?

          Reply
          • I personally think, with human faith, that:
            1) Sr. Lucia was tasked with requesting the Holy Father to perform the consecration at bequest of Our Lady and there was sufficient evidence that this was a good idea (moreover from the very fact that Russia was probably the hardest country to perform a consecration of because of the inherent risks suggests the particular value of performing said consecration)

            2) Had the consecration been done there would have been supernatural assistance and a triumph of the Immaculate Heart (that would go far beyond just the fall of communism)
            3) The consecration will be late (based on a later revelation to Sr. Lucia)
            4) St. JPII, himself, said he did not perform the consecration

    • Re Questions #1 & #3: Kiwi was on to something in his post. If Pope John XXIII had revealed the Third Secret as Our Lady asked, it would have stopped the convocation of VII. Because he did not do so, the Church has been suffering. In fact, I read that when Pope John was dying, he said to stop the council. By then, VII was in full swing.

      Re Question #2: In 1952, Pope Pius XII consecrated Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary BUT – and this is VERY important – WITHOUT ALL the bishops doing it with him on the same day at the same time.

      Excerpts from the article:

      On June 13, 1929, Mary appeared again, saying:

      “The moment has come in which God asks the Holy Father, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means. There are so many souls whom the Justice of God condemns for sins committed against me, that I have come to ask reparation: sacrifice yourself for this intention and pray.” …

      (End excerpts)

      In the 1950s, Our Lady said to Sister Lucia:

      “Make it known to the Holy Father that I am awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart. Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace.”

      The late Fr. Gruner (eternal memory!) often said that God was withholding the graces necessary for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary because Pope John XXIII refused to reveal the Third Secret (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…” ). When the actual Third Secret IS revealed, THEN the Holy Father and the bishops will receive the graces they need to make the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

      When i was little, a boy I knew wanted a puppy. His mom said: “Are you going to take care of him?” He said: “No.” “Then you can’t have him.” The same principle applies here imho.

      Reply
      • Playing the Devils advocate…. let me ask this…had the Popes obeyed Mary’s requests they could have avoided the Second World War according to Sr Lucia…Russia would not spread its errrors…Seriously… then why would any sincere Catholic deny The Mother of God her request? Unless 1. These Popes were not true Catholics or 2. The third secret is it’s ( the Fatima apparitions) are all made up or 3. There is another reason that none of you have touched upon…it doesn’t make any sense that the Popes deny the Mother of God her requests, if these are willed by God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

        Reply
          • Mr Peterman your comments are uncharitable, in fact if anyone is acting like a Troll it’s you towards me

        • You should do more reading, Paul. Essentially, the thoughts are that satan has infiltrated the Vatican as referenced by several people in several prophecies. Malachi Martin spoke of it and Paul VI explicitly stated it in the 1970s.

          The second train of thought–which is not mutually exclusive of the first–is that the Vatican is swept up in politics. They were constantly trying to play politics with the USSR, for instance. Naturally, the “errors of Russia” are problematic notion to broadcast to the world when you’re trying to curry favor with Russia.

          To think of the two above reasons is quite simple. Both are plausible and given what we’re seeing now, probably true, and neither are exactly the fiftieth web in a complex conspiracy theory or theories.

          Reply
          • Brian , if Paul VI could smell the smoke of Satan in the Vatican, all the more reaon for HIM to do Marys Request. If not him then JPII OR Benedict. Your answer makes no sense.

          • Actually, Paul, if you were trying to understand and wanted to address my post in its entirety than it would be clear. That being said, you make another very strange comment that, again, betrays your lack of comprehension with regard to what is being said: Mary did not ask a pope to consecrate Russia, she asked a pope in concert with ALL the world’s bishops to simultaneously consecrate Russia to her. Popes cannot summarily order bishops to do things, nor can popes force them to do something.

            That being said, you will have to address the second part of my comment in order to even attempt to effectively disprove what I said.

          • Brian, when I said, “it doesn’t make” what I mean by that is it doesn’t make sense IF the Popes are truly Catholic and God fearing men. I agree that it would need all Bishops under the command of the Pope to do what Mary requested and i agree that the smoke of Satan Hass entered the Vatican but the question still remains that it doesn’t make sense for a God fearing Pope not to do the requests of our Lady

          • First, there is nothing that compels me to believe these men are all God fearing. Second, we Catholics, including popes who are Catholic, are not required to believe private revelation. Third, you have no idea what goes on inside the Vatican except we know at times there is some very disgusting, heretical and satanic things going on (for a taste search the terms “Coccopalmerio, secretary, cocaine, homosexual”). Fourth, again, read Malachi Martin whose words are coming more-and-more true by the day (another one I didn’t mention was that he was predicting liberals would force JPII to resign: sure, that didn’t happen but they got Benedict XVI. Now who ever dreamt of popes resigning?).

            Finally, again, you understand the words but you are not tying together the overarching idea that synthesizes the problem: it does no good for the Pope to consecrate Russia alone or with 50% of the bishops or 90%…he needs 100%. Knowing that he will not get all of them to do it, why kick that hornet’s nest? JPII actually alluded to this in Fulda, Germany in the early 1980s: why kick the bear if you need your whole army behind you and they are manifestly not.

        • If Our Lady required the Popes to perform the Consecration, this means that She would give them ALL the necessary graces to comply to Her request.
          Never is anyone obliged to fulfill impossible things.

          Reply
        • Re #1: Yes, they are true Popes. Remember: Our Lady asked for the Collegial Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on June 13, 1929. The apparitions were not officially approved until October 1930 (87 years today if I remember right).

          I don’t know the mind of Pope Pius XI, but think of it this way: He probably felt that if he followed an unapproved apparition, he’d be going out on a limb and possibly ruining the reputation of the Church.

          Last Sunday’s Gospel was Luke 5: 1-11 where Our Lord tells St. Peter to go out into the deep and let down your nets for a catch. St. Peter remonstrated with Our Lord but he did as Our Lord said and caught the miraculous drought of fish.

          Pope Pius XI would have to “go out into the deep” by believing an unapproved apparition. Unlike St. Peter, he didn’t obey Our Lord. He probably thought he was being prudent, but to paraphrase Ecclesiates 3, there’s a time to be prudent and a time to take a risk.

          I have NO intention of judging the dead; I’m just trying to put myself in his shoes.

          Reply
        • Your are repeating yourself again ….and again……. and again. So, since you wish to continue, please DEFINE what Making Sense means exactly and in what context you are using it. Everyone has not only touched on it but charitably expanded on it for you. So perhaps you have your own personal understanding of the phrase.

          Reply
          • Heloisa, I apologize if my comments have irritated, it was not the intention. I’ll explain what I mean by stating not making sense to some of the other people’s comments . The initial questions I have asked are based on the premise that our Popes since Fatima are God fearing men who would do the will of the God as requested by Our Lady in Fatima. The answers from some of the other people on this thread infer that are Popes are willfully disobedient, some infer atheist, some infer naive. But if we look at the lives of many of the Popes since Fatima it would be wrong to judge these men is such a way, thus the comments that these Popes were corrupt/weak/ lacking Faith in some way makes no sense. Many of these Popes demonstrated incredible Faith, therefore to blame the Popes on the basis of the arguments given by some these people,to me makes no sense are we to accept their opinion that the Popes are some how Anti Catholic or put worldly issues before Gods will. Who knows but perhaps the reason that no Pope has done the request of Mary correctly is because they fear what will happen next, perhaps they know what the consequence would be, could it be that this action would mark the start of the end of the world, do the Popes tremble at the thought of making such a step, who knows? It is not my intention to hurt the feelings of the other commentors on this article, I respectfully read the comments and appreciate your thoughts. What would be interesting is to ask Cardinal Burke the question why no Pope has fulfilled Mary’s request properly. I hope I answered your question. Best regards to you

          • Don’t you think it was a bit odd that the post conciliar popes didn’t dare to perform the Consecration out of fear that this step would possibly trigger the “end of the world” (according to what you are saying) ?
            Then these popes would have been more aware about the consequences of the Consecration than Our Lady and God themselves ?
            So they declined consecrating Russia because they deemed that the request of Our Lady was a pure craziness.
            In your opinion were they proud men or cowards ?

          • Good questions, I am only speculating, it’s a mystery to me, I have always believed that the Popes in recent times were faithful God fearing men, who would do the Will of Our Lord and Mary, why this request has not been correctly done ( this also according to Cardinal Burke, who is a good man) is the question that is a mystery.

    • One Pope did! Pius XII consecrated Russia to Our Lady — BUT — and this is something everyone seems to forget is necessary — he did not do it in union with all the bishops of the world, and it was therefore not accepted by Our Lord, according to Sister Lucia.

      When anyone blames Pope John Paul II for not specifically naming Russia, I wonder how many bishops would have remained in union with the Consecration if he had?

      Personally, I think it’s going to take something major, perhaps even supernatural, to get some of the bishops to agree. Can you imagine Cupich consecrating Russia to Our Lady? How about Wuerl, or Daneels? Maybe if Francis himself asked them to do it, wink,wink, they would, but otherwise, I doubt very much that they would.

      Reply
    • The answer to your first question is fear of offending the Russian government. It is always on the mind of the Church that the consequences of offending the Nazis at the beginning of WWII was the murder of over 2000 priests and bishops in Belgium who decried the persecution of Jews by Hitler.

      I can’t answer why the third secret is shrouded in mystery.

      Reply
    • I have thought about that many times, I can only come up with fear. They fear man more than God so they disobey the command of heaven.

      Reply
        • Well, Paul, if you think critically for a moment it makes perfect sense: what if they’re atheists? What if they think there’s this life and that’s it?

          Again, I know that the left likes to discredit Malachi Martin but read his books, listen to things he was saying in the early 1990s that would happen! SS “marriage” in 1992? Come on, who was thinking of that then? The Church approving of divorce and remarriage….widespread pedophilia….crazy stuff happening in society. It’s all there and it’s all coming true and it’s on the record for over 30 years. Do some research, Paul.

          And for the record, Fr. Martin was not a prophet but he saw the third secret in writing via Cardinal Bea.

          Reply
          • Brian W. I came across this website for the first time today when I was searching about the Pope Francis support website , it occurred to me what if the third secret revealed that the Papal seat would be vacant after Pope Pius XII, what do you make of this novus ordo watch? https://novusordowatch.org/now-what/

          • I’m not a sedevacantist but certainly hold that we have had several popes who either fail to fulfill their duty or, as may be the case with regard to Francis, don’t even understand the faith.

            Whatever the case may be, I believe that God is infinitely just: he gives us leaders we deserve. Several people point to poor Cathechsis as a reason for the apostasy of several Catholics, including those who continue to attend mass regularly. Part of the logical conclusion of that argument would necessarily have to be, then, that it is not their fault that they don’t know the faith. I believe that to be abjectly false: I was poorly catechized. To those day I do not grasp all the teachings of the Church, if any, but I know the laws laid down by God and some of the Church’s expositions on those laws. The information was not difficult to find nor to understand: it all makes perfect sense.

            With the preceding in mind, again, God is just. People who don’t know cannot blame those who should have catechized them: they can easily find the material themselves and then decide if they want to reject it. It’s their own laziness and desire to be “mainstream” that obstructs their learning. Ergo, we do deserve Francis.

          • Short question, which Catechism do you read? Would you read the one that JP II had prepared? Or only the ones re Vatican Ii

        • Were they concerned that obedience to a private revelation would undermine Papal authority and
          hold the Church “hostage” to future private revelation?

          The implications of private revelation directing rather than affirming Church actions would set a
          dangerous precedence and a satanic tsunami of subsequent ” revelations ” may have sown even
          greater confusion and doubt.

          The Lourdes apparition in which Our Lady stated I AM THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION was 4
          years AFTER that article of faith was proclaimed by the Church.

          Reply
          • That is Food for thought… why would our lady not appear directly to the Pope to pass on her important messages or at least confirm them?

          • The Pope hold’s ( or at least used to ) a specific office, namely to confirm the Faith and present a steady hand on
            the ship’s wheel amid the stormy seas of this life as we journey safely towards salvation.

            History is replete with approved private revelation and outstanding Saint’s to give witness to and encourage us all
            in faithfulness to the revelation of the TRUTH which is JESUS CHRIST.

            God confounds the wisdom of this world consistently.

          • What Barry said, and we see in Biblical and modern history that God doesn’t go directly to rulers, but by way of a mediary. Samuel, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the other prophets were mediaries in the Old Testament. When Jesus commanded King Louis XIV to consecrate France to His Sacred Heart in 1689, He did so through St. Margaret Mary rather than going directly to the King. Lucia at Fatima being of course a more recent example.

            I believe that the principal at work here is one of humility. The ruler is given sufficient confirmation that the prophet speaks on behalf of God, of course (like the Miracle of the Sun where Fatima is concerned), but they must have the humility to trust and obey though the messenger is one of the little ones of the world. The king must stoop to hear Margaret Mary. The pope has to stoop to hear the message of Lucia. For Our Lord and Our Lady to appear to them personally would probably be a spur to pride.

            Secondly, no earthly ruler wishing to send a message to another ruler acts as his own messenger. It is not befitting the dignity of the office. So they send their servants on their behalf. So too, with our Lord and Lady.

        • Read about the rolly polly “good pope” John, he feared the Russians being offended and not coming to his council. It’s fear of man Paul, not fear of God. If they feared God they iwould have made that consecration immediately. John Paul II supposedly asked if he should say Russia during his consecration, his papal advisers said “no no, you can’t say that” so he didn’t. Those are just two examples, what would you call that? Fear of God?

          Reply
        • I’m quite the certain the implication is that they’re either faithless (atheists) or that they chose the other side (satanists) in the battle.

          Reply
          • Fear is another possibility, which indicates a lack of faith. Many bishops ignore the words of Christ because of simple stupidity.

        • Brian is correct as is J Peterman. They know that if God really exists and the Consecration is made, things will change and they will no longer be in charge and will also be held accountable before God for trying to destroy Christ’s Church. They reckon that as long as there’s no Consecration, they can safely continue serving mammon by enjoying their lifestyles and allying with secular authorities who can increase their power. I suspect that most of them, even if they’re pretty well atheists, still retain a suspicion that they might just be wrong, so why risk it? The old adage comes to mind: Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad. (Applies to society in general as well at present).

          Reply
          • I’m not implying that at all, which you know perfectly well. I gave a number of reasons in my other reply “they have all caved in to secular pressures or their own agendas (or
            what increasingly appears to be simply hatred of the Church),”. Some appear to have just been weak, others too interested in secular events, others, certainly today, certainly seem to have no interest in the True Faith.

            Remember, however, also, that the request was for the Pope together with ALL THE BISHOPS to make the Consecration. So we are not just talking about why individual Popes didn’t do it, but why they were perhaps simply unable to because they didn’t have the support of Bishops – for all the same and varied reasons I’ve suggested.

            We are unlikely to know in this world the true reasons why an individual Pope didn’t/couldn’t do it and it’s God’s business to judge individuals, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try bringing to light the failures of Popes in their office as Christ’s Vicar to make the Consecration in line with Our Lady’s specific request and the reasons why it hasn’t been done.

    • Modernist heresy. Remember that Catholic theology began to change in the mid 20th Century. Marion devotion started to decline. Protestants do not believe in devotion to our Blessed Mother. The TLM is steeped in Marion devotion; not the the Novus Ordo. It is very possible that these popes wanted to suppress the secrets because they, in their hearts, did not believe that our Blessed Mother was the “Mother of God.” She may have given birth to Jesus but that only made her the mother of God, the Son, not the entire Trinity.

      Reply
      • Are you saying Modernist heresy from every Pope since Fatima? Really? Even JPII who devoted his life to Mary? Why didn’t he consecrate Russia correctly?

        Reply
        • You are answering your own question. If he was devoted to the BVM, why didn’t he consecrate Russia correctly? Our Lady of Fatima didn’t present the request in a complex manner. One cannot serve two masters. That seems to be the rub, doesn’t it? If he does the request as asked by the BVM, the USSR will kill many innocent people. So he may have thought. But if it can be done in a way that seems like the request is completed without making the communists mad, then no one gets hurt. Modern way of trying to appease God and man. Man will always lose. And so we have.

          Reply
          • This is JPII , he was willing to take on the USSR and if he had faith in God and the BVM he would have done what she asked, end of story. So the question is still if Fatima is true and the BLessed Virgin Mary’s request are true, why haven’t they been done 100 years after Fatima. It makes no sense.

          • I’m really not sure what you’re getting at. Yes, it should have been done, but they have all caved in to secular pressures or their own agendas (or what increasingly appears to be simply hatred of the Church), just like Louis XIV and the (non) – Consecration of France to the Sacred Heart. It makes no sense because I suspect you’re looking at it as they should have done – God’s orders should be obeyed immediately. Well, the request was made in 1929, I believe, so we’ve another 12 years to go! They really ought to meditate on the fate of Louis XVI and of France.

          • Don’t feed the trolls Heloisa, he’s just trolling the forum with never ending questions, taking the debate somewhere you likely don’t want to go.

          • You and I are in the same boat, Paul! We are talking about a pope who was made a saint who seemed to have a great devotion to the BVM. And yet he played around with a simple request by the BVM. You know, he did add a mystery to the rosary all about the life of Christ. Did JPII think that our Lord was slighted in the original rosary given by His Mother? Interesting.

          • Thanks Woody and also the other. People on this chat for your comments, it has certainly given me much food for thought.

          • The sainted John Paul II had much to answer for when he approached the throne of God. Not least the elevation of Jorge Mario Bergoglio to the bishopric after being advised by an Argentinian Jesuit not to do so.

      • “Remember that Catholic theology began to change in the mid 20th Century.”
        This is indeed crucial! The false spirit was at work trough theologians like H. Kung, K. Rahner, E. Schillebeeckx, to name just a few, but in negative sense important ones, who were the masterminds during the IIVC. All of these three have in that time already a big problems (heretical views) with rightly understanding among others; the priesthood, celibacy, contraception, and even abortion… But also many other important doctrinal teaching of the Church of Christ.
        Their influence and their works at the IIVC were more than huge, and had a huge impact on the outcome. None of them did not feel much or nothing, for the Mother of God.
        Moreover, they did a ‘good job’ at IIVC to minimized the (role and importance of) Virgin Mary, our Lady, the Mother of God.
        While all Rahner’s theological works must go trough the censorship before the time of IIVC, he was nevertheless appointed as a consultant, and he even got the title peritus, which gives him even more influence…
        In year 1960 Küng was appointed as professor at the University of Tubingen, and he too was later appointed as peritus, by pope JonhXXII, at the Second Vatican Council. (At this council and also in Tübingen he worked together with Joseph Ratzinger.)
        Schillebeeckx’s theologically art at the IIVC was specially applied into Dei Verbum, Lumen Gentium, Gaudium et Spes.
        From 1967., Schillebeeckx had been involved with the great efforts to introduce ‘far-reaching changes’ in the Catholic Church in the Netherlands. Internationally he was especially active as co-founder of the theorical magazine Concilium, to which theologians like Chenu, Congar, Karl Rahner and initially also Joseph Ratzinger have contributed. Schillebeeckx was a distinguished participant in the Pastoral Council in Noordwijkerhout (1968-1970). Think here on the very bad fruit of it so-called the “New Holandse Catechism”!
        Al these theologians were professors of dogmatics. Of course, we can imagine how smart they think they were, even that smart to feel them called to change even the DOGMA’s, the real true Church teaching which is simply unchangeable!
        In the same period of the mid 20th century, and even earlier, the false ideology was set up by communist spies, which was called the liberation theology. This plague was particularly widespread in Latin America, and because of it many clerics have turned away from the right path. This one was a very nasty cuckoo’s egg, which was condemned even by JPII and BXVI, but now with Francis, that false ideology, that deadly plague did not only revive, but also flourished.

        We today, we see the fruits planted before 5, 6 and more decades ago!
        And because we see it, and we recognize it, we therefore have to expose them and fight with all the forces against this and all other evil, external or internal ones!

        Reply
        • Exposing them is easy….Its one word “Serviam”. These men do not serve God, non Serviam, and it is easy to indentfy them and expose them , but getting them out of their positions as priest, Bishop or Cardinal is the challenge

          Reply
    • The Pope John Paul was in negotiation with Russia about opening the churches if he wouldn’t criticize communism.
      This put him in a difficult position because of South America.
      I read a book about a detailed history of the problem awhile ago.

      Reply
      • I know, but on this occasion it makes more sense (to me, anyway!) to have a page of discussion, as there now is, refuting his trollery. If anyone reads this article later, there’ll be plenty of answers for them. At the end of the Day, his repeated statement and question is still valid – Why didn’t they do it? It makes no sense. Plenty of people without any knowledge of this issue – including myself up until a couple of years ago.

        Reply
        • Heloisa, I’m no troll, I sincerely asking the pertinent questions that anyone would ask. Even Cardinal Burke has also recently mentioned that Mary’s request at Fatima was never fulfilled correctly.

          Reply
          • I think you need to read more about the history of the Church before VII and the background leading up to it. I can’t help you out there – I’m still learning about it all because coming out of the NO Church and being the age I am, I had no idea how VII had come into being.

            Yes, your question is perfectly valid. I do feel that Trad Catholics sometimes assume they’re always replying to people who know as much as they do about it all and therefore shouldn’t be asking ‘obvious’ questions. But none of us is perfect! Same for the Popes – they are all only human even after becoming Pope – still sinners, still not necessarily co-operating with the Graces God offers them.

            Another question would be, since we are told ceaselessly that ‘The Spirit’ was the originator of VII and is the driving force behind Francis’ schemes, why has no VII Pope ever tried speaking ‘ex cathedra’ ? Perhaps it is because they know that the true Holy Ghost wouldn’t allow it because they’re teaching false doctrines etc. It would be interesting to know what happen if they did try it!!

          • That’s interesting. I read a comment the other day – a post from someone possibly on this site or The Remnant – which said that the Assumption and Immaculate Conception are the only two ex cathedra teachings ever. The poster appeared to know what they were talking about so I accepted it as correct (probably!). Is it possible to have an imho on this? No idea, myself, of course.

          • There is a specific verbal formula for a statement by a pope to be ex cathedra and he must use it. In substance he must declare his intention to make such a statement and must declare it binding on all Catholics to accept it whether they agree with it or not. I’m not sure if there’s more – there may be, but that is, as I said, the substance of it. I’m not sure whether Ordinatio Sacerdotalis fills the bill.

      • Mr Peterman, I’m not a troll, I’m a practicing Catholic, My questions are concerning the article and if anything there are comments made by others which cast the Popes since Fatima in a very bad light. Please kindly consider who you flippantly call a Troll. Thanks

        Reply
          • Anyone coming into this mess from the NO, and believing that the VII Church and everything Catholic and Vatican related is all above board and bona fide and the work of the Holy Spirit, is going to be completely swamped when they start uncovering reality and ask a lot of questions.

            In any case, what’s wrong with charitably trying to redirect trolls?

          • Read his posts, if you like to engage, go for it but when you read all his posts you can quickly see a pattern of trolling, he’s not out to learn any truths of the faith from you or me or anyone, he’s out to spread his agenda. He is doing this by asking endless open ended questions trying to lead you or anyone down the primose path.
            Add on top of that the dead giveaway of frequently calling our Lady “mary” that’s what protestants do often in debate, I engage them often. Don’t care to engage protestants in a Catholic forum though, they can run along to their many sites telling us when rapture is coming, lol.

          • Again, if you want to spend your day feeding the trolls, go for it. He’s not here to hear your opinions and learn something of tradition or of the faith, he’s here to lead you down his path by asking endless open ended questions which have an agenda, go back and read his posts especially his “devil’s advocate” post. He’s not playing devils advocate in what he suggests about the approved Marian apparitions, he’s playing the devil. He also repeatedly refers to our lady as “mary” that’s what protestants do frequently when I engage them on youtube and other places. Again, if you wish to feed the trolls go for it, he’s not here to learn anything from you regardless of his endless questions.

          • I trust, then, that you have notified the writer of the article and our good Margaret who quoted the article, that they too are trolls for calling Our Lady Mary?

  4. ‘CRISIS OF THE CHURCH’. sums up the Fatima message. Oct.13 is the 100th anniversary of the miracle of the sun spinning at Fatima. 70,000 witnessed it. Yet, today there are Catholic priests who preach that you don’t have to believe in the Fatima message.
    Pope Francis has turned his back on orthodoxy and the entire Right to Life cause. The PAL (Pontifical Academy for Life are appointed by the pope) now has a member who’s in favor of abortion. Pope Francis will write a contraception-friendly pastoral “re-interpretation” of Humanae Vitae in the near future .The John Paul ll Institute will no longer focus on abortion, but now will focus on the environment. Shortly before he died, St. Francis of Assisi called together his followers and warned them of the coming troubles, saying:
    1. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
    2. The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavor to draw many into error and death.
    3. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
    4. There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
    5. Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
    6. Those who preserve in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent
    men from the face of the earth. but the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head, [Christ] these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
    7. Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days JESUS CHRIST WILL SEND THEM NOT A TRUE PASTOR, BUT A DESTROYER.”
    Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi, Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250

    Reply
  5. Pray this three times today if you can, with your forehead touching the floor: “My God, I believe, I adore, I hope, and I love Thee, I beg pardon of those who do not believe, do not adore, do not hope, and do not love Thee.”

    They’re having some celebration at my Church tomorrow with a procession and guest speaker on Gregorian chant. Nothing against the speaker I really feel it’s a day for sackcloth and ashes rather than celebration.

    Reply
  6. Fatima was approved by the Church in 1930 yet the Pope who oversaw that approval and those
    that followed did not follow specific requests of Our Lady, why?

    Were they concerned that obedience to a private revelation would undermine Papal authority and
    hold the Church “hostage” to future private revelation.

    The implications of private revelation directing rather than affirming Church actions would set a
    dangerous precedence and a satanic tsunami of subsequent ” revelations ” may have sown even
    greater confusion and doubt.

    For surely it was ultimately doubt and not wickedness that has led to the Churches failure to react
    wholeheartedly to Our Lady’s Fatima requests. Such a contradiction ( given the Church approval )
    is not beyond possibility and since GOD knew how things would play out up to this point, did the
    Church simply approve, make use of, and avoid perceived ” damage ” in the Geo-political sphere by
    avoiding a full and unambiguous response?

    Religion and politics mixed with little faith and the free-will of fallen Man.

    Reply
  7. “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 these “WORDS of the Virgin” in the version of the 3rd Secret unveiled in 2000?
    It is only the description of a vision through the own Sr Lucia’s words.
    The Vatican’s press release of Feb 8th 1960 was the first of a long string of inconsistencies.
    There is no other way that in the Third Secret our Lady actually SPOKE.

    Reply
  8. Dear Readers, the Apparitions of Mary at Fatima were not private, but public revelations for the whole world!
    On 10/13/1917, over 100,000 witness the confirmation of Mary’s Apparitions.
    We are living in the Age of Mary!
    JAMLY,
    hobo

    Reply
  9. And this is where I have always felt apart from my Catholic bretheren. Fatima, Lourdes, Guadalupe, etc., strike me as patently false. Witness the extraordinary amount of time and energy consumed by parsing and debating these apparitions. It diverts attention from the only One our faith is based on: Christ alone. All of this strikes me as a diabolical diversion, and has since I was a child in Catholic school.

    Reply
  10. Why add the gloss “too” to the excerpt “They did not wish to heed my request. Like the King of France, they will repent and do it, but it will be [too] late. Russia will have already spread her errors throughout the world, provoking wars, and persecutions of the Church; the Holy Father will have much to suffer.”? I have seen this once or twice, but it seems to be an interpretation of the words of Our Lord which appear to contradict an earlier warning at Rianjo, to whit, “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.” I have read this before, but I do not have a copy of the memoirs, so I do not know if it is in the original or if it was added later by someone interpreting it.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...