Browse Our Articles & Podcasts

On Fatima Story, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Breaks Silence


Today, May 21, 2016, the Holy See Press Office has released, in its daily bulletin, a statement attributed to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. The statement categorically denies the affirmation, reported here, from Fr. Ingo Dollinger, which speaks of a private conversation in which then-Cardinal Ratzinger spoke to Dollinger, a personal friend, about there being more to the Third Secret of Fatima than was published by the Vatican in June of 2000. Here is the full text of the Vatican statement:

Communiqué: on various articles regarding the “Third Secret of Fatima”

Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

[00855-EN.01] [Original text: Italian – working translation]

As the Publisher of OnePeterFive, I wish to respond to this statement. One cannot take lightly a rebuttal from someone of the stature of Pope Emeritus Benedict. It is noteworthy that — to our knowledge — this is the first time since his abdication in 2013 that the Pope Emeritus has issued an official statement through the Vatican press office. With all that is currently troubling the Church, with all the confusion that now assails the faithful, this is the story which has prompted Benedict to break his silence. Clearly, this is a matter of unusual importance in the eyes of the Holy See.

This statement is received by us with filial respect and love for the Pope Emeritus. And yet, it presents a problem. It conflicts directly with statements we have reported, and accuses us of false “atrribution” and “invention.” It also flatly contradicts our source, Fr. Dollinger, not offering the possibility even of a misinterpretation, but rather, an accusation that the events he recounts are completely fabricated.

It is, in itself, a strangely perfunctory communique, and is presented in a way that prompts questions about its provenance and completeness. It is not a full, unabridged statement from Pope Emeritus Benedict; nor does it bear his signature. We are presented instead with pull quotes attributed to Benedict, and lacking the full context in which they originally appeared. Neither is it given to us to know who conducted this apparent interview with him, or how the questions were phrased.

We are, in other words, asked to take it on faith that the statement contains the authentic, complete, and ratified sentiments of the Pope Emeritus on the matter.

It is noteworthy that when we presented the words of Fr. Dollinger as reported by Dr. Hickson, we were accused by some of reporting unverifiable hearsay. But now we are given partial statements attributed to Benedict by an unnamed member of the Vatican communications staff — statements which implicate us, and also Pope Benedict’s old friend, Fr. Dollinger, in willful deception — and we are asked to believe that the matter is therefore settled?

I hope you will forgive my skepticism.

I have two questions about the semantics of this carefully-constructed statement. I believe they merit consideration.

First, I would like to draw attention to the portion which states, “the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter ‘are pure inventions, absolutely untrue’.”

Dr. Maike Hickson, who personally called Fr. Dollinger, attests to the truth of what she recounted from that conversation. Inasmuch as the Vatican statement accuses her of “attributing” statements which are “inventions” to Fr. Dollinger, it is false. She did not imagine the conversation she had with Fr. Dollinger, she reported it, and I stand by her testimony with full confidence in her integrity, both as a journalist and as a faithful daughter of the Church.

Further, this morning Dr. Hickson telephoned Father Dollinger with the news of the Vatican statement, and at that time he again confirmed to her emphatically and clearly his previous remarks. In other words, he stood by his story.

We must also reiterate that Dr. Hickson’s original conversation with Fr. Dollinger could not have been an “invention” inasmuch as it was not original in its content. It was not an attempt to break news, but rather to seek direct confirmation of a story that had already been attributed to Fr. Dollinger years ago. As stated in Dr. Hickson’s original article, “This sensitive information pertaining to the Third Secret, which has been circulating among certain Catholic groups for a few years now, has now been personally confirmed to me by Fr. Dollinger himself…”

The first published account of Fr. Dollinger’s testimony (of which we are aware) appeared in an interview with Fr. Paul Kramer in Fatima Crusader in May of 2009. It has since been referenced in various Catholic publications and venues. Anecdotally, one of our commenters on the Fr. Dollinger story recalled that as a Brazilian, he had heard this same story from a priest who was a student of Fr. Dollinger in 2003 or 2004. (Fr. Dollinger was the rector of the Institutum Sapientiae in Brazil, where he taught moral theology.) The only thing new about our report is the direct confirmation made by Fr. Dollinger (in German, his native language) to Dr. Hickson, which she sought in an attempt to gain clarity on the matter.

Second, the communique quotes Pope Benedict as saying that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”. This is very cautious language, in a legal sense. If the Vatican has already published all that it intends to publish about the Third Secret of Fatima — even if there is more that they do not intend to publish — one would be technically correct in saying that “the publication is complete.” It does not in any way dispel the notion that a text written by Sister Lucia at the prompting of Our Lady as a means of interpreting the symbolic import of the Third Secret may yet exist.

As I stated in my followup to our original article, one needn’t assume that the popes who have potentially concealed additional information relating to the Third Secret have lied to us; if they fear that the information it contains will cause severe damage to the Church in some way, they may be using broad mental reservation in their concealment of the portion of the text in question. There is also the issue, raised by Marco Tosatti, of internal questioning within the Vatican apparatus about which portions of an additional explanatory text, if it exists, can be attributed to Our Lady, and which to Sister Lucia. If there were sufficient doubt, one could conceivably conceal such a text while remaining technically correct stating that the full secret (ie., the portion that they were confident came from Our Lady) had been revealed. The legalistic sense, therefore, is noteworthy in this regard.

I believe that beyond the questions raised by the text of the communique, there are other known facts which simply do not add up in this statement as attributed to Pope Benedict. The language is strong, even harsh, and it seems uncharacteristic in that regard. Benedict has a reputation for kindness and gentleness, and the source of the information he is refuting comes from a long-time friend – a friendship that his statement does not deny.

The statement also appears to close the door emphatically on the question of any further undisclosed import in the Third Secret. And yet Benedict’s own position on this issue has seemingly evolved over the past 16 years, and it would be difficult to characterize it as a settled matter. On June 26, 2000, when the Vatican announced the text of the Third Secret of Fatima, it was accompanied by a theological explanation by then-Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In it, he said:

And so we come to the final question: What is the meaning of the “secret” of Fatima as a whole (in its three parts)? What does it say to us? First of all we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: “… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past”. Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed. Fatima does not satisfy our curiosity in this way, just as Christian faith in general cannot be reduced to an object of mere curiosity. What remains was already evident when we began our reflections on the text of the “secret”: the exhortation to prayer as the path of “salvation for souls” and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.

But as Pope Benedict, Ratzinger travelled to Fatima in May of 2010. And at that time, he offered a somewhat different interpretation. From his airplane on May 11, 2010:

I would say that, here too, beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in the first place refer to Pope John Paul II, an indication is given of realities involving the future of the Church, which are gradually taking shape and becoming evident. So it is true that, in addition to the moment indicated in the vision, there is mention of, there is seen, the need for a passion of the Church, which naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope, yet the Pope stands for the Church and thus it is sufferings of the Church that are announced. The Lord told us that the Church would constantly be suffering, in different ways, until the end of the world.

Two days later, at a Mass at  the Shrine of Our Lady of Fatima on May 13, 2010, Pope Benedict said:

We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.

Christopher Ferrara, a noted expert and author on the topic of Fatimarecounted the following earlier this week, related to Antonio Socci’s book on the topic:

[I]t should be said that, in fact, the Popes themselves have not told us that the Message has been fully revealed. The vision pertaining to the Secret was not revealed until 2000, after which John Paul II observed a conspicuous silence concerning the controversy over the completeness of the revelation. And in 2010, as Socci has put it, Benedict not only declined to say that all had been revealed but rather “reopened the dossier” on the Third Secret by alluding to contents that clearly do not appear in the vision. Further, Benedict sent Socci a note thanking him for publishing The Fourth Secret of Fatima (which I translated into English), even though it accuses the Vatican apparatus of concealing a pertinent text.

For his part, in a blog post dated May 12, 2007, Socci relates that he keeps

the letter Benedict XVI wrote to me about my book, thanking me “for the sentiments it inspired in me.” [per i sentimenti che l’hanno suggerito]  Words that comfort in the face of insults and accusations…

The inspiration for Dr. Hickson to seek out confirmation from Fr. Dollinger came, in part, from the new testimony of Dr. Alice von Hildebrand, who recently published formerly private information regarding an additional portion of the Third Secret which indicated an “infiltration of the Church to the very top.” This information, according to Dr. von Hildebrand, was revealed to her and her late husband in 1965 by Monsignor Mario Boehm, a former editor of the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

Is Dr. von Hildebrand also to be accused of inventing her story? What of the late Cardinal Ciappi, the papal theologian to Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II? It is Ciappi who is widely credited with the public revelation of the information that Alice von Hildebrand has now confirmed: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

There is a great deal that does not add up. There are many questions left unanswered. We offer our sincere prayers for the Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI and our gratitude that he broke his silence to address this open question.

At the same time, we are being asked to believe that we are being lied to by our sources. That we are being deceived by individuals in the last years of their life, with nothing apparent to gain. Individuals who have established strong reputations as noteworthy and orthodox Catholics, and whose reputations have now been put on the line by presenting an alternate version of events.

This is a great deal to ask, and we must respectfully request, therefore, that we be given a complete response — a full, unaltered, and witnessed statement from the Pope Emeritus himself. The filtered words of the Vatican Press office do not suffice.

337 thoughts on “On Fatima Story, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Breaks Silence”

  1. Agree entirely. BXVI is essentially the real “prisoner of the Vatican.” He is never allowed to speak directly and this, in any case, doesn’t even sound like him. And it is very cautious, legal language. I’m saying it’s phony.

    • Vn. Anne Catherine Emmerich spoke of him I believe as a prisoner. Don’t despise prophecy as St. Paul told us.

      • I don’t despise prophecy, but the problem is that there’s a prophet a minute, which is why the Church has always been careful. Mohammed thought he was a “prophet,” Joseph Smith thought he was a “prophet,” and about a million Protestants have thought they were out there getting special messages from God or somebody.

        An approved prophecy is fine, but still, nobody has to believe -this simply means that even if it’s not real, it’s not harmful if you do believe it; and if it is real, believing it is certainly going to be a good thing.

        I’ve always believed Fatima was authentic, but sometimes its interpreters went too far and I think they up ended up making Fatima look like something distinct from and better than the Church. Which of course gave heretics like Francis cover to attack the whole vision, even if he’s doing it somewhat indirectly now.

        But the interesting thing is that he would even feel needled enough to bother.

        I’ve also thought that perhaps one of the things that was brought to BXVI, about three months before he resigned, was not only the report on the sex offenders and fraudsters in the hierarchy, but was something about the Third Secret. I read somewhere – I don’t remember where – at the time that something was brought to him in a wooden box, and I believe the secret was kept in a wooden box.

        • OH I wasn’t directing that at you, just putting it there as a confirmation to all those who do despise. The “newest” prophecies I believe are no newer than 100 years and all from Church approved apparitions or saints.

          • Thanks, I didn’t think you were!

            I’m actually (Slavic) Byzantine Rite, although there’s no Byzantine rite church around me so I go to the regular NO mass.

            My husband and I started going to Our Lady of Fatima on Lake Street in San Francisco when Fr. Karl Patzelt was still there. He had built the parish – he was a Jesuit who had been born in Germany and while he was a seminarian, was drafted into the German army as a stretcher bearer. He was captured by the Russians and spent a number of years in a soviet prison camp, which confirmed not only his vocation, but his commitment to Russia and to Our Lady of Fatima.

            Memory Eternal for Father Karl.

          • That’s too bad, here in Florida we have a Byzantine Catholic and Ukrainian Catholic Church just within a few miles. After reading quo primum I stopped going to the Novus Ordo, there is no need, the TLM is available with no problems.

  2. If you consider the information that has come from the hierarchy in the Vatican since VII, any information, even by a pope, must be suspect. Who first told the laity that the TLM was abrogated? Who continued on that road, even putting together a “secret group” of cardinals to study the issue of the abrogation of the TLM, and when they came to the conclusion that the TLM was not abrogated, would not report the findings on the basis that it would cause a great disruption within the Church? Who abdicated his office presumably on the basis that he was ill and soon to die? These are only three incidents I point out but are very important incidents that were done by three different POPES! I would expect, prior to VII, that the pope would NEVER tell a falsehood, which includes not telling the whole truth of a matter. I don’t know what the complete third secret of Fatima is and I don’t care. I don’t care what the Vatican has to say about the “rumors” going around about the third secret because the Vatican can’t be trusted to tell the whole truth. I find my solace in the Holy Trinity and the BVM, and because of them, in the Catholic Church. I have no trust in the men who have governed the Church since the 1960’s.

  3. I would say the Pope Emeritus should make a videotaped interview but what’s the point? The usual suspects would just say that he was being threatened with a weapon off camera. Once he passes on to his eternal reward, we will have the Siri Thesis Part II.

  4. This just proves that you hit on the big story that scares some people in Rome.

    Nobody bothered to deny he told an Argentinian divorcee that “a little bread and a little wine can’t hurt.” Nobody bothered to deny or correct all the other blasphemies and insults against the Holy Ghost which emanate from Casa Santa Marta on a daily basis. But this one has them running around like frightened rabbits.

    Well done, Mr Skojec. Keep pushing on this one. They are taking notice.

      • Haven’t you heard? We are only allowed to write wills if Frank the Humble approves of them first. 😉

      • I agree with the assessment of Deacon Augustine: Why is the Vatican frightened about this particular reporting from 1Peter5? I think you touched a nerve! Keep going.

        • Akita. Fire from the sky. Two thirds of mankind consumed, good and bad. Etc.

          Pope John Paul II (1980) concerning the third secret: “Given the seriousness of the contents, my predecessors in the Petrine office diplomatically preferred to postpone publication so as not to encourage the world power of Communism to make certain moves.

          “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.”

          • Ha! John Paul II’s worries are no excuse now given Al Gore and the religion of Climate Change are prophesing the same things except it’s attributed to human industry and population rather than mankind’s sins. And last time I checked, those guys were very welcome at the Vatican by Francis! Maybe our Lady of Fatima should have made the message about saving the Earth rather than saving souls from Hell!

          • Isn’t it convenient to the one apostate at the top, that all those inconvenient truths – as per validated prophecies, can be done away with man-made global warming/global cooling/climate change (you pick)?


            THE ***MISSION*** OF FATIMA IS “prayer as the path of ‘salvation for souls’ and, likewise, the summons to penance and conversion.”




          • Why do you post under a pseudo-name? This type of critique needs to carry a proper signature!

          • Please find your way back to the unmentioned apostolate that refuses to acknowledge the real problem.

          • Dear Mr. Awesome ‘Guest’,

            Here is what Benedict XVI said…

            “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s PROPHETIC mission is complete.”

            And he said this in the context of war:

            “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete. Here there takes on new life the plan of God which asks humanity from the beginning: “Where is your brother Abel […] Your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground!” (Gen 4:9). Mankind has succeeded in unleashing a cycle of death and terror, but failed in bringing it to an end…”

            You know? War and destruction as that which is said to be contained as part of a chastisement in the Secret?


            What does the PROPHETIC MISSION have to do with prayer and penance, which are things you should always be doing anyway and this revelation to do so is hardly prophetic??? And where do you even get that bogus idea that Fatima’s PROPHETIC MISSION will not end until the end of time given there is a clear end seen in the vision and that Jesus Christ Himself says it will be done late but that the Pope shouldn’t delay it least he suffer the fate of the Kings of France?

            Mr. Guest not only cannot read, he also cannot comprehend Fatima.

          • TO GUEST: Is it only me, or does there always appear a distinctive arrogant ‘tone’ in posts like yours that are critical of the the facts and Truth. Interestingly, comments and observations of the kind you have provided can’t help, despite the best of efforts I’m sure, but stick out like a sore thumb in rude and disrespectful opposition to those who genuinely and fearlessly desire Truth.

          • Great job being a jerk, “Guest!” You clearly have a vendetta or bone to pick, which is not what these comment boxes are for so, politely, would you please go away? Thanks! Bye!

          • Yes reading comprehension is important. Try to comprehend these:

            “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.”

            In a 1980 interview for the German magazine Stimme des Glaubens published in October 1981, John Paul II was asked explicitly to speak about the third secret. He said: “Because of the seriousness of its contents, in order not to encourage the world wide power of Communism to carry out certain coups, my predecessors in the chair of Peter have diplomatically preferred to withhold its publication. On the other hand, it should be sufficient for all Christians to know this much: if there is a message in which it is said that the oceans will flood entire sections of the earth; that, from one moment to the other, millions of people will perish.”

          • Case in point, the Fiat Lux climate change light show projected on the Vatican on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception last year replete with pagan and Masonic symbols.

          • Thats something I didnt know about. I thought it a strange type thing for vatican to show a “light show” and how blasphemous on that feast day. Can you elaborate on the symbols?

          • For starters, you can go to Defeat modernism also has a video explaining occult images in the light show if you google it. Please be sure to view Akita and the Fatima Secret on You Tube as it is very current and has recent footage of Sister Agnes whom the film maker met on his visit to Japan last year. She has been hidden away for years. The film maker is very knowledgable about the topic of Masonic influences and I will try to contact him for greater details on the light show, if you need more.

          • It’s not fair to say Sister Agnes has ‘been hidden away’ for years. She is a nun and as such does not travel or speak in public – I’m sure she is very happy to live out her vocation in peace.

          • It may seem unfair but is a fact that she has been inaccessible in order to conceal Our Lady’s message. Please watch the Our Lady of Akita and the Fatima Secret on You Tube to see why.

          • And replaced her with an imposter to promote the Vatican’s false message that the secret had been fully revealed.

          • Well only SOME of these wild natural events can be attributed to climate change. It would be pretty naive to think that clearing the equivalent of 100 football fields of Amazon rainforest each day would not have an impact on world climate systems. That’s not counting masses of air pollution and what goes on everywhere else.

            That doesn’t mean ALL such natural events are caused this way. Some of them would be divine in nature. Earthquakes, volcanic eruptions and tsunamis for example, are not climate change induced.

          • Gravely evil gossip is what 1peter5 was propagating, against a good and holy Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI. This cannot be denied – that you all published mere “hearsay.” “He told me, and I will tell you, about a conversation that I think I remember from 15 years ago.” Clowns.

            It is evident that the SSPXers are a lot like Bergoglio in that they both think evil can be used as long as they see the ends as good.

            Sorry, brother, evil can never be used as good, even if you utter the evil in Latin….

          • Dear Mr. Guest…

            Do you know what Journalism is? How can 1P5 be spreading ‘gossip’ if they got it straight from the source’s mouth?

            Are you saying that Fr. Dollinger and Alice Von Hildebrandt are liars? Do you have evidence?

            Or are we supposed to simply believe Mr. Guest’s HEARSAY on an internet comment section?

            Hahaha! Idiot!

          • I doubt highly Alice VonHildebrandt is lying. I dont know dr. Dollinge, but if hes a clise friend of Benefict XVI, I doubt it slso. I think he abdicated under some not light pressure id some sort, directly, ir indire tly having to do with Fatima.

          • How charitable your reply is. I’m sure Jesus would approve. Not. Read Matt 5:22.
            Seriously though, we don’t need to worry about apostasy from the top reading these comments. Regardless of the veracity of these claims, our best response is to acknowledge the planks in our own eyes, get on our knees and pray. The lack of charity and contempt here for those that dare have a different opinion is staggering. It is certainly not worthy of we who profess to be Catholic.

          • Google Fiat Lux, the light show on climate change that defiled the Vatican on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception last year December 8 which include pagan and Masonic images and symbols.

          • Jeanne Kobos Lupien, I just watched the light show on youtube (yes, I agree, tasteless for such a holy place), and I looked hard to try to find what you were talking about, but I only saw things having to do with land and earth, animals, and people. I saw no pagan or masonic images or symbols. None???

          • Go to Vatican light show. Also read “Defeating the Brotherhood of Death ” there is good information on teach

          • Card. Ratzinger said: “Akita’s and Fatima’s messages are “ESSENTIALLY THE SAME”.
            The official text of the 3rd Secret as released in 2000 has nothing in common with the apocalyptic facts and catastrophes everybody can read in the messages of Akita.
            Therefore one may easily draw the conclusion that the Vatican didn’t release the full stuff.

          • Note that the citation is very indirect. Howard Dee said Bishop Ito had it confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger.

            “Howard Dee, former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, said in a 1998 interview with Inside the Vatican magazine: “Bishop Ito [the local bishop, now deceased] was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima, and Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.”

      • It is time to bring back all the discrepancies, lies, inconsistencies and contradictions about the 3rd Secret that the Vatican has piled up since Feb 8th 1960.
        Socci has gathered them all in his book and he is accused of “conspiracy tbeory” while the conspiracy to silence the Secret was plotted by the Vatican since the beginning.

        • Read John Salza’s book, A Catechism of Fatima. They are all there. Beautifully written. Easy to understand. Also a strong warning in the end against the modernist pushers of a “Fatima Today” message that wants you to think “there’s nothing to see here” except what they want you to believe.

          Tour groups are formed regularly by people who want to spread this bunk in conjunction with a group of non habit wearing nuns who do their on site lectures. Beware. Discern.

        • If Fatima is so valuable, why all the discrepancies, conspiracy theories, and so on ? They are not a good sign at all. The talk of secrets is reminiscent of Gnosticism – one of the marks of Christianity is that everyone who professes it shares and has access to the same doctrines; there are no secrets that are hidden from the many, and are revealed to a privileged few alone. It is not at all clear that the Church has not been divided and wounded by all this speculation, that in the nature of the case is impossible to verify. The fruits of making such a big thing of the alleged apparitions and alleged messages and their consequences, seem in large part not to be good 🙁

          If the Popes thought the Third Secret mattered, why did they ignore it in 1960 ? Does a Saint ignore a message from Heaven ? So either John XXIII is not a Saint, or he thought Fatima was no big deal. Public revelation is over, closed and finished, so while private revelations like Fatima or Lourdes may be interesting, they are of no theological or pastoral importance, can add nothing to the Faith, and only those receive them need bother with them. One is no more Catholic for accepting them, and no less Catholic for paying them no attention.

          • Does a Saint ignore a message from Heaven?

            For goodness sake, the answer is yes.

            Saints are not omniscient and can often be mistaken, even about religious matters.

            In the Great Western schism, there were saints who disagreed with each other as to who was the real pope.

            Saint John Vianney did not, at least initially, believe in La Salette due to the dubious lives of the alleged seers (they were not practicing Catholics).

            It should be obvious that the Fatima secret is “a big deal.” If it were not, it would have been revealed in 1960.

            If what the Vatican published in 2000 were all that there is, why could that have not been published in 1960? It talks about persecution of the Church, which is an old, familiar story that everybody already knows about.

            It’s not that shocking.

            Yet, Sister Lucia stated that she could not write the secret for several months, it bothered her so.

            Lastly, Pope John XXIII wasn’t “Saint Pope John XXIII” until he died. “Saints” ignore quite a bit of things.

            I have no doubt that there are people alive who basically ignore Fatima but who will one day be “saints” in Heaven.

          • “did not, initially” – IOW, he did eventually. Mentioning him is no defence, because Our Lady suposedly said that the Third Secret was to be read on the death of the last seer, or in 1960: whichever came sooner. St John Vianney was given no such command – the Popes, were. And John XXIII ignored it. So he can’t have thought it mattered much – or else he was a Saint who thought that disobeying a Heavenly command was no big deal. BTW, disobedience to a Heavenly message is not the same as being mistaken, or the same as lack of knowledge. He knew fine well what he was supposed to do, he was well able to do it – and he refused to do it. Sounds like a mortal sin to me. Your mention of the GWS is not to the point either, because they, unlike John XXIIII, did not what they were supposed to do. His duty was clear. He ignored it.

            That may sound harsh, but if a man is Pope, and is canonised, he should not be given the benefit of the doubt, or cut any slack. Scum like us, who are not Saints and never will be, need all the excuses for our spiritual scumminess and worthlessness that we can get – though we cannot make them. A Saint OTOH is supposed all but indistinguishable from Christ – and since the Church proposes them to us for our imitation, their least faults are all the more glaring and indefensible. Christ did not disobey His Father – so why did the allegedly Saintly John XXIII do so, if he believed the Third Secret was from God ? So he apparently did not think it was from God.

          • And John XXIII ignored it. So he can’t have thought it mattered much – or else he was a Saint who thought that disobeying a Heavenly command was no big deal.

            There is nothing in the Fatima message that commanded a pope to reveal the third part of the secret.

            The third part of the secret was not even meant for the pope anyway; it was given by Sister Lucia to the then Bishop of Leiria, and it was the bishop, not the pope, who Sister Lucia made promise to reveal the secret upon her death or after 1960, whichever came first.

            The part of the message that was directly related to the pope was already revealed: the collegial consecration of Russia.

            Almost the entire hierarchy has ignored that command since 1929, when it was made, among whom are several canonized saints who believed Fatima to be authentic and who had the duty to comply.

            You don’t think any of the canonized bishops since 1929 believed in Fatima? Which one of them even attempted the consecration of Russia?

            Saints can ignore private relevations, even those they believe in. It happens. It’s called free will.

            The apparent reason Pope John XXIII did not reveal what he read was stated by him: “That does not concern the years of my pontificate.” (Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 557, English edition; Fr. Joaquin Alonso, official archivist of Fatima, La Verite sur le Secret de Fatima, French edition, page 106).

            Thus, there is a hint of a temporal indication in what the pope read. If Pope John XXIII didn’t believe Fatima was authentic, it would have been silly for him to pay any attention to any “secrets” at all.

            But the fact of the matter is that he did read the secret, with his confessor present. That indicates that he thought it was authentic.

            He obviously decided, for prudential reasons known to him and to God, not to reveal it. But he was under no compulsion to do so to begin with.

            The Bishop of Leiria was allowed to read the secret immediately upon its having been written by Sister Lucia. He apparently chose not to do so.

            He should have read the secret and kept a copy and then revealed it in 1960. He promised Sister Lucia he would reveal it. He did not do so because he did not have it at the time and had apparently never read it. The fact that he died in 1957 may also have played a part in his not having revealed the secret in 1960. Instead, the secret was taken to the Vatican that year.

            We’re living the results of the gaffes.

          • …”That indicates that he (Pope John XXII) thought it was authentic.”…
            You are wrong: The feb 8th 1960 press communiqué released by the Vatican stated: “Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She doesn’t desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the words that the three shepherds children said that the Virgin Mary had a dressed to them”.

          • I completely disagree.

            The anonymous press communique of 1960 says nothing whatsoever about Pope John XXIII’s views on Fatima and in fact is evidence that the message was believed but suppressed because of the fact that it was believed, and the hierarchs involved did not want to expose the truth.

            By the year 1960, the Church had approved, as worthy of belief, the Fatima apparitions, which included the first two parts of the secret of Fatima, which no one has ever questioned to be the words of the Blessed Virgin.

            It defies reason to think that the hierarchy had no problem believing the first two parts of the secret… never suppressed… but yet do not believe the last part.

            NO. That’s not credible.

            You should arrive at the exact opposite conclusion: The prelates involved certainly believe/d the third part of the secret. That’s why they suppressed it, NOT the other way around.

            It is obvious that the third secret calls into question the activities of people in the upper hierarchy, and they know it.

            Hence, the suppression of the third part of the secret.

          • “It’s not that shocking.”??? Then WHY did Sister Lucia find it so hard to write it down? If it wasn’t shocking, she would have written it down easily, nor would it be under wraps for 56+ years.

          • Please re-read my post.

            The sentence “it’s not that shocking” relates to what is written immediately prior, not the actual part of the secret that has not been revealed.

            Sister Lucia’s reaction to writing the secret is what calls into question the Vatican’s position.

            What the Vatican released is not shocking. In fact, it’s run of the mill for the Church: a pope being persecuted and killed along with other clergy and Catholic laity.

            That’s on every page of the Church’s 2000 year history.

            Not a shock.

            Therefore, it seems obvious that what Sister Lucia tried to write was quite different from what was revealed.

          • Margaret, when Sr Lucia sent the 3rd Secret to the local bishop of Leiria (by obedience because he required her to write it down), HE himself, canonically, had the right to release the Secret.
            Once he had read it he was so upset that he decided not to to divulge the Secret and to forward it to the Vatican. And the Pope John XXIII did alike in 1960
            What in the vision unveiled in 2000 was so frightening?

          • There are two (2) parts to the Third Secret of Fatima. The Vision was released in June 2000. The part which has NOT been revealed is the exact words of Our Lady which follow:. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”. These words are held by the “etc.” in the *Fourth* – NOT the Third – Memoir of Sister Lucia.

            The Third Secret – in both parts – was supposed to be revealed in 1960. So there’s something in the words of Our Lady which the Vatican has kept under wraps in the papal apartment fy the past 56 years. Pope Francis lives in Santa Marta House, not in the papal apartment where the Third Secret is kept. Out of sight, out of mind is my opinion.

            PLEASE get The Secret Still Hidden by Chris Ferrara from

          • Feb 8, 1960 Vatican Press Release: “Sister Lucy wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret …”.

          • Btw, the Bishop of Leiria DID have the right to read the Third Secret,.but there is no record of him reading it before the Third Secret we taken to the Vatican in 1957.

          • Did you ever know what is “modernism”? The holy Pope Pius X said that it is the”synthesis of all heresies”.
            Every pope since John XXIII has been contaminated by the modernist ideas.
            Fatima is the synthesis of anti-modernism. No wonder why it must be silenced.

          • I’ve heard of Modernism more times than I can count. I see no connection between it, and Fatima.

          • As the Fatima apparitions were officially recognised in 1946 you cannot call them “alleged”. If the alleged content of the Third Secret is correct, then it would have tremendous influence in all our lives & the disobedience of successive popes & hierarchies since Vatican II to Our Lady’s request to have Russia consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart & the Third Secret revealed in 1960 is simply breath-taking. If all has been revealed, why not publicly show the documents involved – they would surely be regarded as historic by now? It is the silence & secrecy about only disclosing part of the Third Secret that is alarming & does nothing to quell public unease about the honesty of the CC leadership.

          • First of all, Fatima is NOT a private revelation – it is a public prophetic revelation.

            Second, the Third Secret (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady as mentioned below) were supposed to be revealed in 1960.

            There are two parts to the Third Secret of Fatima:. The Vision, and the exact words of Our Lady which follow: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”

            The only way out of the crisis in the Church is the revelation of the exact words of Our Lady and the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

            Please check for details. You can get The Secret Still Hidden by Chris Ferrara there and lots more information about Fatima .

          • Margaret. Public Revelation is Scripture and Tradition and ceased with the death of Saint John.

            Fatima is private revelation and, thus, not binding one anyone

          • Spartacus, for whom was intended the “Miracle of the Sun” performed on oct 13th 1917? Only for the seers children since it was a “private revelation”? Why then was it witnessed by 60 to 70 thousands people?
            The Virgin Herself said it was performed “so that all may believe”.
            Anyways you are free not to believe it.

          • Dear jdumon. IANS believes completely in Fatima and all of the approved Marian Apparitions and his Uncle was a LaSalette Priest who died with his harness on as pastor of old Saint Casimir’s Church in New Hamster.

            The poor beleaguered father of IANS was also a seminarian at LaSalette as were three other uncles.

            We ol’ sods not only tell our beads, we are quite in love with Mary as our Mother is Queen of Heaven, Queen of Earth, Queen of Peace , Mediatrix of all graces, and the destroyer of all heresies.

          • Just a mere 70,000 ? Some still wouldn’t believe it to be public revelation if the whole world witnessed it!

          • As I said, Fatima is a public prophetic revelation. I can’t read your mind, but I think you’re confusing public prophetic revelation with public revelation (which as you correctly noted, closed with the death of St. John the Theologian and Beloved Disciple). They are not the same thing. +Fr. Gruner (eternal memory!) explained the difference between the two in the Fatima Crusader.

            Please check out – they’re the best resource for the full Message of Fatima.

          • + Fr. Gruner (eternal memory!) passed away on Apr. 29, 2015 and was buried on May 2, the Feast of St. Athanasius and the first Saturday of May.

            If “he was am (sic) arrogant disobedient renegade”,, then he’s in the same class as +Archbishop Lefebvre. May their memory be eternal!

          • Did Mons. Lefebvre die EENS?

            Fr. Gruener had a history of lies that have been well documented.

            As for the acolytes of the renegade cleric, Fr Gruener (He was a vagus priest – you know, the type condemned at The Council of Trent) they are all members in bad standing vis a vis being obedient to legitimate authority and they all scratch each other’s backs as they falsify the words of Mary.



          • Margaret. It is well documented that Fr Gruener is a liar and has been called that publicly by a Cardinal.

            Gruner is no stranger to the calming effect of the all-encompassing explanation. For years he, waged a campaign against the Vatican claiming that the consecration of Russia called for by Our Lady of Fatima had not taken place in 1984. Thousands of letters were mailed to the Vatican demanding that the consecration be redone according to Gruner’s specifications. Eduard Cardinal Gagnon’s phone number was published in the Fatima Crusader, with the admonition to call and enlist him in this cause. The result was that the Cardinal was awakened so many times in the middle of the night by the weeping of hysterical women that he had to have his number changed. Gruner then alleged on the cover of his magazine that Gagnon agreed with him that the consecration hadn’t taken place, a fact which Gagnon promptly and publicly denied, calling Gruner, among other things “a liar.” And then, worst of all from Father Gruner’s perspective, came the events of 1989 and 1991, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the failed Communist coup in Moscow and the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Now Father Gruner is forced to find other villains, or other explanations for the malaise we feel. Even though he still somewhat grudgingly refers to the “so-called fall of communism” in his talks, the fact remains that, one of the main conspiratorial causes has disappeared. Instead of rejoicing, there is simply more consternation. How do we explain the chaos in the Church now?


          • First of all, + Fr. Gruner passed away last year, so using the present tense:. “Fr Gruener (sic) is a liar (sic)” is ontologically as well as grammatically incorrect.

            Second, did you ever consider his side of the story?

          • Yes, for that is practically all one has heard about for a score of years.

            What do yo think of his lying -is it ok because of his agenda?

          • There is nothing like a putative traditionalist using a Messias-Denier to attack the one True Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church for being insufficiently in harmony with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost.

            Men like Gruener speak for Catholic Tradition?

            Since when?

          • An Epilogue for the Disappointed

            April 2013

            By Howard P. Kainz

            New Oxford Review

            I certainly agree with John Martin about the overarching importance of Fatima during the twentieth century. It was an extraordinary intervention by the Mother of God, warning the faithful of impending threats and offering the means to obviate or mitigate those threats. The late theologian and physicist Fr. Stanley L. Jaki also agreed. He traveled to Portugal to undertake a thorough scientific investigation of eyewitness accounts and depositions regarding the “miracle of the sun,” resulting in a massively researched book, God and the Sun at Fatima (1999). He concludes that Fatima is arguably the most important event of the twentieth century, a providential sign for an era that was to witness so many incredible acts of inhumanity and immorality.

            Martin summarizes some of the detective-like sleuthing carried out by Fr. Nicholas Gruner and his associates at the Fatima Center, who are concerned that Catholics, and the Vatican in particular, have fallen far short of fulfilling Our Lady’s requests. One glaring fault, in their opinion, is the alleged truncating of the third secret when the contents of the revelations were revealed by Pope John Paul II on June 26, 2000, and the omission of a veritable “fourth secret” that was supposedly withheld from the public. As Martin mentions, Fr. Gruner and his cohort believe that “the third secret spoke of apocalyptic horrors and high-level apostasy in Rome itself.” So they have concluded that it was in the interest of the Roman hierarchy to keep this part of the secret out of publication. It was, says Martin, “not exactly the kind of thing one wants spicing up the conversation.”

            Another, perhaps even more glaring fault, they allege, is the failure of John Paul II, after soliciting the cooperation of the bishops of the world to make the requested consecration on March 25, 1984, to use the correct wording. The Pope did not mention Russia by name, but only in a diplomatic circumlocution that would be understood by the participating bishops and those familiar with the Fatima message, but would not arouse the ire of the belligerent U.S.S.R. The Pope presumably wished to avoid contributing to heightened persecution and martyrdom of Catholics behind the Iron Curtain at that time, especially in his native Poland, where the Solidarity movement was being threatened with destruction by Soviet forces.

            I have discussed both of these allegations, and the evidence proffered by the Fatimists for them, in my November 2011 NOR article, “On Fatima & the Private Interpretation of Private Revelation.” I have no new insights or rebuttals to add, nor have I come across evidence since then that would cause me to revise my position.

            Briefly, with regard to an alleged “fourth secret,” I argued that if the Vatican willfully falsified the contents of the third secret, then we would have to believe that a succession of popes and bishops have been liars; and this belief is simply unacceptable to orthodox Catholics. It would also require us to believe that Sr. Lucia herself is also a liar. About the official Vatican release of the text of the third secret, she stated in an interview in 2000 that “yes, this is the Third Secret, and I never wrote another.” If we can’t believe the popes or even the primary Fatima visionary, then there is no credible authority on Fatima in whom we can trust. It is highly doubtful that our Blessed Mother would have orphaned us in this manner.

            Also, I suggested that if the supposedly undivulged secret is, as alleged, a warning about the crisis of faith and discipline in the Church since the 1960s, then it is not all that earth-shattering. That crisis is quite obvious to many of us without any special revelation.

            As for the purported corroboration of the dire warnings in the third/fourth secret that came to light in the messages given to Sr. Agnes Sasagawa in 1973, which involved a bleeding and weeping statue of Mary: In 1984 John Shojiro Ito, the outgoing bishop of Niagata, Japan, the diocese in which the reported revelations occurred, wrote just before his retirement, “I do not find in these events any elements which are contrary to Catholic faith and morals. Consequently, I authorize, throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.”

            But in 1990 Peter Seiichi Cardinal Shirayanagi, president of Japan’s bishops’ conference, told 30 Days, an Italian Catholic news magazine, that “the events of Akita are no longer to be taken seriously.” Then, in 1999, in response to a formal query presented by the traditional Catholic British magazine Catholic Order, Archbishop Ambrose de Paoli, the apostolic nuncio to Japan, stated, “The Holy See has never given any kind of approval to either the events or messages of Akita.” One wonders then if it really could be “Fatima’s voice” that resounds in these unapproved revelations, as Martin suggests.

            With regard to Pope John Paul II’s consecration: The Fatimists are grasping at straws when they insist that Russia must be consecrated by name. Nowhere does the Virgin Mary — or Sr. Lucia, even in Martin’s quote — specify any such thing. From Sr. Lucia’s perspective, the sticking point was not explicit mention of Russia but that the consecration be done in concert with the bishops of the world. That is why Pope Pius XII’s October 1942 consecration of the world to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, in which he made a definitive reference to Russia (“the peoples separated from us by error or by schism”), was not considered valid. Nor was his December 1942 attempt, in which he repeated the words of the earlier consecration. Pius XII even wrote an apostolic letter, Sacro Ver­gente Anno (1952), in which he specifically consecrated the Russian people to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but this too was inadequate because the bishops of the world did not participate. Even Pope John Paul’s early attempts to consecrate Russia, in June 1981 and May 1982, were unsuccessful and for the same reason.

            It wasn’t until John Paul’s March 1984 consecration that the task was accomplished. Sr. Lucia herself verified this in a 1989 letter: “Publicly, in union with those bishops who wished to associate themselves with His Holiness, he made the consecration in the way in which the Blessed Virgin had wished that it should be made. Afterward people asked me if it was made in the way our Lady wanted, and I replied: ‘Yes.’ From that time, it is made!” In fact, she stated in 2001 that whenever her convent would receive a petition from Gruner and company to redo the consecration, they “simply threw it away.”

            As for evidence that the consecration was successful and that Russia is being converted, we can point to the completely unpredicted crumbling of the Berlin wall in 1989, followed by the dismantling of the Soviet Union, which was declared miraculous even by secularists who profess not to believe in any religious genre of miracles. Our Lady had asked for the consecration of Russia and First Saturday reparations — otherwise, Russia “will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions against the Church.” Russia is no longer spreading the error of communism throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions (though some traditionalist Catholic publications have taken to reinterpreting the “errors” of Russia as Darwinism or secular materialism, or some other such thing, evidently in an attempt to discredit history itself). If any one group is spreading its errors throughout the world it is the non-Russian Islamists in Egypt, Iran, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Syria, Pakistan, Albania, Nigeria, Mali, and other countries, who are shedding blood and causing wars, and subjecting Catholics and other Christians to persecution and martyrdom. One can be forgiven for lack of knowledge of these onslaughts against the faithful, since the mainstream media tend not to focus on such stories.

            The Orthodox Church in Russia — which, unlike Protestant communions, is a bona fide “sister Church” with apostolic succession and all seven sacraments, according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s 2000 instruction Dominus Iesus — has flourished slowly but surely since the demise of the U.S.S.R. The conversion of an entire nation like Russia would depend on over a hundred and forty million individual free-will movements — major, life-changing decisions that often take decades to complete — and cannot be expected to take place overnight in a great dramatic metamorphosis. Even the coming of the Holy Spirit described in Acts 2 did not bring about the conversion of all of Judea, or even all of Jerusalem. Even Our Lady of Guadalupe was not able to convert the entire Aztec nation to Catholicism. Fr. Jaki’s interpretation of Our Lady of Fatima’s prediction about conversion has significant merit: “Fatima was not meant to be a heavenly token about a never-never land on earth…. The conversion of Russia, whatever that may mean, will be a slow process, as are all large-scale conversions. Only those would think otherwise who naively telescope the often painfully slow processes of ecclesiastical history into quick phases of triumph.”

            Our Lady assured Sr. Lucia that Portugal would always “preserve the faith.” But statistics show that only 11.7 percent of Portuguese Catholics attend Mass weekly. The Eucharist is the “source and summit” of the Catholic faith, and if Portugal as a nation can be considered to be “preserving” the faith with such a poor witness, then it isn’t unrealistic to argue that the “conversion” of the entire Russian nation is well underway. Truthfully, the nation of Portugal isn’t doing any better at preserving the faith than other Catholic nations. Think of St. Patrick’s promise that Ireland would keep the faith until the end of the world. According to the Irish Times, weekly Mass attendance in Ireland in 2012 stood at only 33 percent — not stellar by any means, but almost three times better than Portugal. If we consider Abraham’s dialogue with God in Genesis 18 concerning the contemplated destruction of Sodom, we get the impression that God might be satisfied with a city or country if He could find even a faithful minority or remnant.

            It seems that Fr. Nicholas Gruner’s ego has overshadowed his praiseworthy mission of spreading the message of Fatima. About the time my NOR article came out, a book entitled Russian Sunrise by Bruce Walters, M.D., was published and has since been continually promoted and sold on the Fatima Center website. In this novel, a thinly disguised version of Fr. Gruner appears as the protagonist, “Fr. Nicholas Gottschalk,” who is described as a priest in Detroit who is “without doubt the world’s best-known Fatima advocate.” He heads an “organization, known as the Fatima Herald,” which “seeks to proclaim the full truth about Fatima.” Unfortunately, he has been “persecuted for decades by powerful men in the Church hierarchy,” and one of the characters in the novel states that “Father Gottschalk in Detroit often spoke about the ‘Vatican party line,’ likening it to the Communist party line that once ruled Russia.”

            Along with the Gruner protagonist, an avatar of Pope Benedict XVI also appears as another main character in the novel. He is called “Nicholas VI,” and is described as “the first German pope,” who “had grown up in Bavaria, where he and his identical twin brother Frederick had been talented pianists and composers.”

            As the plot unfolds, some young American descendants of Russian nobility are introduced who are, through coincidence of mutual interest in music and Catholic and Orthodox traditions, instrumental in getting Pope Nicholas to consider some of Fr. Gottschalk’s demands. The Pope replies, “For decades he [Gottschalk] has been a big thorn in the side of the Vatican. Because of him, we have never enjoyed complete peace about our Ostpolitik, or about our project for Christian unity through ecumenical dialog. Father Gottschalk has kept traditional Catholics stirred up, believing the consecration of Russia is the only viable path toward peace, because it is Heaven’s mandate.”

            In the ensuing chapters, Russian civil and ecclesiastical authorities, with the encouragement of some Russian-Americans, take Fr. Gottschalk’s writings seriously, and present to the Pope a “Russian Request” for renewal of the consecration of Russia. The Pope, moved but uncertain, leaves his twin brother to take his place, and travels incognito to Detroit, where he goes on retreat, looking for guidance. Jesus appears to him and in no uncertain terms tells him that he should implement the re-consecration before it’s too late. The Pope issues a proclamation that includes this line: “The gratitude of the Holy Father to Father Gottschalk for his untiring work and manly courage in promoting the consecration of Russia in the face of much skepticism and persecution by many highly placed members of the hierarchy of the Church, is hereby acknowledged.”

            After the consecration of Russia is completed in 2015, the vast majority of Russians undergo “a conversion of heart” and “voluntarily and eagerly embrace the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” They also become convinced that they need to go beyond democracy to re-establish a Christian monarchy. This latter development is facilitated by the young Russian-Americans, who turn out to have unmistakable credentials as successors to the Romanov Tsardom. Pope Nicholas, when all is prepared, goes to Russia to crown Tsar Mikhail and Tsarina Mariya. In the end, “a plaque honoring Father Gottschalk would be erected in each of Russia’s Catholic cathedrals, both Roman Rite and Orthodox Rite.”

            (My apologies for these “spoilers” to anyone who plans to read Russian Sunrise.)

            Many of us who feel that our accomplishments and contributions to the Church or the world have not been sufficiently recognized may in unguarded moments have had fantasies similar to the plot of this novel. But a return to reality — and to humility — is always necessary.

            We can take on the authority of two successors to Peter that the consecration of Russia has been accomplished, with an authoritative verification from none other than Sr. Lucia herself that “it was accepted by Heaven.” And we can rest assured that peace will eventually come to the world, as Our Lady promised.

            There are, however, major obstacles to the emergence of peace at this moment in history. Let us recall that at Fatima Our Lady admonished us that wars are caused by sin, and that the sins that send most persons to Hell are “sins of the flesh.” Probably the paramount “sin of the flesh” in the world now is the use of contraceptives, among Catholics as well as others, and not just in Russia or the U.S., but in the world as a whole. In my September 2009 NOR article “Contraception & Logical Consistency,” I brought out the inevitable logical connections that the widespread acceptance of intentionally non-procreative sexual intercourse must have.

            If we can visualize Our Lady dialoguing with God about conditions for world peace, might we expect God to say, “Well, the majority, even Catholics, are offending against the natural law, as well as the laws of the Church, but let’s grant them a peaceful world, and they may reform”? This is hard to imagine. We can’t wait on the conversion of Russia; we have to attend to our own personal conversion and work for the conversion of the Church and our own nation.

            On the other hand, on a more hopeful note, one of the best harbingers of the possibility of peace in the world is the drive toward authentic ecumenism that emerged from Vatican II. So many divisions have come from the fracturing of Christian unity by heresies and schisms over the centuries; and possibly the most hopeful sign is the ongoing movement toward unity between Catholics and Orthodox. In fact, according to a recent AsiaNews report (Feb. 7), “Relations between the Russian Orthodox and Catholic Church in recent years are experiencing a positive trend,” due to what Kirill, the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church and the patriarch of Moscow, called the “clear recognition of the need to join forces in defense of traditional Christian values and counter some threats of modernity, such as the aggressive secularism which threatens the moral basis of social and private life, the crisis of family values and the persecution and discrimination of Christians in the world.” There can be no doubt that a Catholic-Orthodox reunion would be earth-shaking and miraculous, like the surge of energy caused by the sudden closing of an electrical circuit, establishing a glorious sign of revivified Christianity tantamount almost to the triumph envisaged by the apocalyptic visionaries and the Russian Sunrise novel.

            But patience is of the essence. Conspiracy theories will not accelerate the process; in fact, they are a hindrance in that they distract us from the urgent tasks at hand. Fortunately, in the past few decades, God has granted us saintly and dedicated Popes who have not played tricks on us but who have provided us with the leadership we need in these troubled times, and who have, with the cooperation of the faithful, implemented Our Lady’s wishes.


            “No apparition is indispensable to the faith; Revelation terminated with Jesus Christ…. The apparitions that the Church has officially approved — especially Lourdes and Fatima — have their precise place in the development of the life of the Church in the last century. They show, among other things, that Revelation — still unique, concluded and therefore unsur­passable — is not yet a dead thing but something alive and vital.” — Pope Benedict XVI

          • Two Hours With Sr. Lucia

            Cardinal Antony Padiyare, the Highest Church prelate present at the Bishop’s Conference decided to visit Sister Lucia to find out the truth about Gruner’s statements and pass this information on to the other bishops at the conference. The Cardinal did not speak Portuguese, so he took with him a devoted follower of Gruner, Carlos Evaristo, who had worked side by side with Gruner in Canada as a travel consultant and was fluent in Portuguese and English.. At the meeting with Sister Lucia, were Antony Cardinal Padiyare of Ernaculam, India, Bishop Rancis Michaelappa of Mysore, India, Carlos Everisto, Mother Prioress, and Father Francisco Pacheco of Brasil. At 12:00 noon on October 11, 1992 this group met with Sister Lucia.

            After many cordial greetings and social formalities, the Cardinal asked if the consecration was done properly. SL = Sister Lucia

            SL: “Yes, Yes, Yes. The consecration was already partially done. Pope Pius XII made it in 1942, On October 31st … but it lacked the union with all of the Bishops of the world, which Pope John Paul II, finally managed to unite in 1984.”

            Again and again she repeated that the consecration was done.

            CE: “But did not Russia have to be specifically mentioned, and did not Our Lady say that?”

            SL: “The Pope’s intention was Russia, when he said: ‘Those People … ‘ in the text of the 1984 Consecration.”

            Again and again she repeated this for new questions on the same subject of the word “Russia”

            CE: “Has the conversion of Russia then taken place?”

            SL: “Yes. The news speaks for itself.”

            CE: “But is not the conversion of Russia not interpreted as the conversion of the Russian People to Catholicism?”

            SL: “Our Lady never said that. There are many misinterpretations around. The fact is that in Russia, the communist, atheist power, prevented the people form carrying out their faith. People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or to convert. This they are now free to do, and many conversions are, in fact, taking place; and that man in Russia, unknowingly was an instrument of God in the conversion…”

            CE: “That Man? Gorbachev?”

            SL: “Yes; and when he visited the Holy Father in Rome, he knelt at his feet and asked pardon for all the crimes he had committed in his life.”

            After this were many questions and answers regarding the Third Secrete of Fatima but I will reserve for another time. One thing should be said about this meeting though is:

            CE: “Is there any connection between Garabandal and Fatima?”

            SL: “There is no connection between Garabandal and Fatima.”

            CE: “Did Our Lady ever say at Fatima in the last apparition: ‘Farewell until St. Sebastian de Garabandal.’ Because there are people who attest to having read it in an old book in Brazil.”

            SL: “Our Lady never said this and, if they read it, it was false.”

            CE: “Speaking of letters. There are letters going around typewritten which are being attributed to you.”

            SL: “Yes. I wrote them.”

            CE: “You know which letters I am referring to? Letters like the one to Sister Maria Belem, your niece, saying that the Consecration is done?”

            SL: “Yes, I know the letters that you mean. Some people have gone so far as to say that they are forgeries. Yes I wrote those letters. No one answers my mail for me. …. No one tampers with my mail, answers it or signs for me. If they say otherwise, it is not true.”

            Asked if she was still seeing Our Lady, she would not answer but said that if she did see Her again she would mention the Cardinal’s special intention. Sister Lucia told the Cardinal to preach Hell.

            To me (Rick Salbato) and my Apostolate (Unity Publishing) to expose those on the left and those on the far right, I love this statement by Sister Lucia the most:

            CE: “What is the message you have for this confused world today”

            SL: “He that is not with the Pope is not with God, and he that wants to be with God, has to be with the Pope.”


          • +++++++++++++++++++++
            Carlos Everisto Attacked

            Carlos was dedicated to Father Gruner before this visit with Sister Lucia. He and his wife and children made their living working for Father Gruner as a travel consultant arranging all their pilgrimages. Now he knew the truth about Father Gruner and he was stuck far away in Fatima, without money, not having been paid, and holding many bills of travel from Gruner’s Crusade. “I have not been paid for my services since November. Several phenomenal bills in the thousands of dollars have been left unpaid by The Fatima Crusader. Telephone bills, faxes, lawyer’s fees, taxi, hotel payments, some of these still left from Fr. Gruner’s October Peace Conference.”

            In March of 1993 Mrs. Sedore and Mrs. Clarke came to Fatima attempting to make Carlos change the truth of what Sister Lucia had said to Cardinal Padiyara and to stop the distribution of the same Transcript. For two weeks these two women (working for Gruner) tried to make Carlos lie, offering to pay what was owed him if he issued statements or signed papers against this truth of what Sister Lucia said about the Consecration.

            Coralie Graham who is listed as editor of The Fatima Crusader, issued a report stating that is was an impostor sister who had met with the Cardinal. She is the same woman who stood outside the convent with Carlos Everisto and said, “If Sister Lucia is really interested in speaking with Father Gruner she can wait.”

            I would like to end this article by telling Father Gruner and all other so-called Traditionalist Priests (not leaving out those liberal bishops, Call To Action, and Amchurch), that : “He that is not with the Pope is not with God, and he that wants to be with God, has to be with the Pope.


            There is your hero, Fr Gruener in action. This is what your hard earned money has been supporting

          • Father Francisco Pacheco (who is a lawyer as well as a priest), publicly disavowed the pamphlet (Two Hours With Sr. Lucia) in its entirety:
            “I was the official translator of this meeting, which lasted two hours. I categorically affirm that the booklet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed. When I was first shown a copy in January 1993, I immediately contacted Carlos Evaristo and I personally told him not to publish this booklet because of the gross lies that he had put in it … I trust that this will end the confusion caused by Carlos Evaristo and his notorious pamphlet.”

          • That’s interesting. When I read it, the portion published above immediately struck me as a complete fabrication. Sister Lucia in particular came across as nothing but a puppet for those who wished to make statements countering some of the most well-established objections to the official narrative.

            I was hoping someone would have an explanation like this. Do you have a link to Father Pacheco’s statement, or a source for it?

            O.C. C. Postal,

            I, Father Francisco Pacheco was invited to meet Sister Lucy of Fatima on Sunday, October 11, 1992. Because Portuguese is my native language and I also speak Italian and English, I was invited to act as the official translator for His Eminence, Anthony Cardinal Padiyara and his friend the late Bishop Francis Michaelappa. We were driven to the Carmel in Coimbra by our chauffeur Carlos Evaristo.

            As I was the official translator of this meeting which lasted approximately 2 hours, I categorically do affirm that the booklet titled ‘Two Hours With Sister Lucia’ published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed. When I was first shown a copy in January 1993, I immediately contacted Carlos Evaristo and I personally told him not to publish this booklet because of the gross lies that he had put in it.

            In October 1993 I met again with Cardinal Padiyara for many hours over several days. On that occasion Cardinal Padiyara absolutely confirmed to me that the letter Carlos Evaristo printed in the beginning of his booklet in fact only confirms that we did indeed meet with Sister Lucy. This letter from the Cardinal dated December 1992, was sent in response to Carlos’ allegations that some person(s) had stated that we never went to Coimbra. All the Cardinal’s letter was intended to convey is that the Cardinal, myself, Bishop Michaelappa and our driver, Carlos Evaristo, did meet with Sister Lucy.

            The Cardinal again confirmed in October 1993 that his letter absolutely does not endorse the contents of the interview as recorded by Carlos Evaristo. This is clear by the simple fact that Cardinal Padiyara does not speak Portuguese and anyone who knows him knows this fact. Besides, if the Cardinal did speak Portuguese, why would he need a translator? I trust that this will end the confusion caused by Carlos Evaristo and his notorious booklet.

            Father Francisco Veras Pacheco


            All of the Popes who saw the messages, Sister Lucy, and even former acolytes of the renegade disobedient Fr Gruener are all liars whereas those opposed to the Popes and Sister Lucy and the man who changed his mind, are the sole souls worthy of belief.

            Well, that makes sense.

            The Professor who wrote an editorial for New Oxford Review (go on, tell us that is a lefty rag) observed the promise that Portugal would keep the faith but then he notes how many go to Mass in Portugal.

            The irrationality, the reflexing gainsaying of all facts contrary to the Gruenerites, is enough evidence that this has become a complete joke.

            Sister Lucy lied, Sister Lucy was replaced with a double…

            Hell, man, if you think all of the Popes are liars, why even remain a Catholic?

          • Fr. Joaquin Alonso, the great scholar of Fatima, said Lucy held that the conversion of Russia to be “purely, plainly and simply to the total, integral conversion of Russia to the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church.”

            Wouldn’t you think it odd that Our Lady would give the ‘thumbs up’ for this religious freedom implied within your post in finding their own faith instead of the Catholic church’s? Why didn’t She just appear to Russians asking of them this quaint suggestion? Indeed, why Our Lady laid this burden upon the pope and bishops if it was just a matter of freedom?

          • Did you take a look at the links that I posted before? If not, please do so. (I did look at the ones you posted.)

            Also, for 40+ years Sister Lucia had insisted on the Collegial Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary in union with all the bishops of the world. After March 25, 1984, Sister Lucia categorically DENIED that the Collegial Consecration of Russia was done.

            Re Mr. Evaristo:

            Father Francesco Pacheco has testified before several witnesses of The Fatima Crusader staff that Carlos Evaristo himself fabricated, invented out of thin air part of the events and dialogue that Carlos attributed to “Sister Lucy”. One of the most striking of these lies is the story that Carlos Evaristo stated that Sister Lucy knew without anyone telling her on October 11, 1993 (and he suggests it was by some divine revelation) of the attack on Father Gruner the night before, October 10th.

            This “revelation” to Sister Lucy much impressed both Cardinal Padiyara and Bishop Michaelappa at the time, giving them reason to believe that indeed it was truly Sister Lucy they were speaking to. The truth is in fact something else.

            The fact is — Carlos Evaristo himself — when he thought no one could see and hear him, told “Sister Lucy” about the attack on Father Gruner. When she mentioned it later on he said everyone (including himself) was surprised. He made out as if it was by divine revelation when he himself knew that in fact he had himself told “Sister Lucy”. Why would he go to such lengths to fabricate such a thing? He has not told us, however we do know that a few months later his mother, Mina, told two witnesses, Mrs. Clarke and Mrs. Sedore, that she works for the Rector of the Sanctuary, Monsignor Guerra. And Carlos himself told them that he would obey his mother in whatever she told him to do.

            As we published before, in The Fatima Crusader Issue 43, “Fatima – 75th Anniversary <>” it is apparent that Monsignor Guerra is the author of the 1989 letters attributed to Sister Lucy. We and others have proven those letters to be bogus. Since those bogus letters were not good enough to fool the world, it appears that this is the latest fraud to fool the world about the essential part of the Fatima Message which goes against the Communist/Masonic infiltrators in the Vatican.

            How do we know that it was Carlos who knowingly, deliberately and fraudulently lied about Sister Lucy in this matter? We know through the direct, clear testimony of the other witness, Father Francesco Veras Pacheco of Brazil. He was there, he heard with his own ears what Carlos said to Sister Lucy. He realized then that Carlos Evaristo was himself a fraud and had another agenda. But not knowing exactly who to trust, or the significance of this lie, he waited till after the Conference to advise The Fatima Crusader.

            Father Trinchard, in his article “Is This the ‘Most Awesome’ Fatima Cover-Up?” in Issue 43 of The Fatima Crusader, pointed out how strange it was for “Sister Lucy” to give “her” message for two hours just before Father Gruner’s Conference closed, even to a young layman of 23 years, even going through her whole lunch hour. “This availability happened on the eve of the final day of Father Gruner’s Conference,” Father Trinchard notes.

            Father Trinchard’s suspicions were confirmed recently when Father Francesco Veras Pacheco, the only outside witness who spoke Portuguese, confirmed that what Carlos reported “Sister Lucy” said against Father Gruner in fact never came from her, but rather came from Carlos’ own mouth during the interview. It seems the conspirator, Carlos, and his “boss(es)” want Father Gruner to stop publishing the truth about the full Fatima Message — particularly about the serious and most important obligation the Pope and the bishops have — to Consecrate Russia in the specific manner Our Lady of Fatima commanded.

            Father Pacheco told us that “Sister Lucy,” who met him, just loved to have her picture taken. (Doesn’t that sound more like an actress than a nun?) We have here a picture he has of this occasion. It seems most strange to us that Sister Lucy, who was 85 years old, who has been a Carmelite for 45 years has 1) black hair, 2) has a habit that is too large for her, 3) does not, apparently know how to put on her headdress properly so that it does not show her hair, 4) that in the last 6 months after her own blood-sister Caroline died, she now for the first time sees people without the benefit of the grille and unaccompanied by a sister at all times. (Caroline told Father Gruner during the fall of 1990, that since 1948 she could not see her blood-sister without there always being other members of the community present — and only through the grille — never in an open room with both of them side by side.)

            “Sister Lucy” with Father Francesco Pacheco on October 11, 1992. For more information about what this photo reveals, read the editor’s comments on this page.
            Caroline died at 89 in 1992 and 6 months later “Sister Lucy” has changed so much — that she has black hair, doesn’t know how to wear the habit, has a habit that does not fit her — and is in fact much shorter than anyone expected to find her. Look at the picture and judge for yourselves.

            Re the Collegial Consecration of Russia:

            Frequently Asked Questions
            regarding the
            Consecration of Russia
            to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

            “The Message of Fatima
            imposes an obligation on the Church”.

            … Pope John Paul II

            1. What is a “consecration”?
            A: It is a ceremony by which a person, group of persons, or thing is set apart as sacred and dedicated to the service of God or another sacred purpose.

            2. What is meant by “the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary”?
            A: At Fatima, on July 13, 1917, Our Lady told Sister Lucy that “God is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Communions of reparation and for the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart … In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.”
            Our Lady’s request is very simple: Russia—the fount of so much evil in the 20th Century—must be set apart and made sacred by its consecration to the Mother of God.

            3. Why is it necessary to consecrate Russia in particular?
            A: Because God wills it. As Our Lady told Sister Lucy at Fatima: “Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation …”

            And as Sister Lucy disclosed in her published memoirs and letters, Our Lord Himself confided to her that He would not convert Russia unless the consecration were done, “Because I want My whole Church to recognize that consecration as a triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, so that it may extend its cult later on, and put the devotion to this Immaculate Heart beside the devotion to My Sacred Heart.” Sister Lucy has explained that because Russia is a well-defined territory, the conversion of Russia after its consecration to the Immaculate Heart would be undeniable proof that the conversion resulted from the consecration and nothing else. The establishment in the world of devotion to the Immaculate Heart would thus be confirmed by God Himself in the most dramatic manner.

            4. And what if the consecration of Russia is not done?
            A: At Fatima, Our Lady warned that if the consecration were not done as She requested, then “Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.” By the same token, the miraculous conversion of Russia after its consecration by the Pope and the bishops, and the resulting peace in the world, will be a sign of the power of God’s grace acting through ministers of His Church and the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

            5. How exactly is this consecration supposed to be accomplished?
            A: True to Her word at Fatima, Our Lady appeared to Sister Lucy at Tuy, Spain, on June 13, 1929, to say that: “The moment has come when God asks the Holy Father to make, in union with all the bishops of the world, the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.” The phrase “by this means” is crucial, because it signifies that the consecration is not merely a symbol of the coming conversion of Russia, but the very means by which it will be accomplished. Thus, without the act of consecration there will be no conversion of Russia, and without the conversion of Russia, Russia’s errors will continue to infest the world, producing the persecution of the Church, the martyrdom of the good, the suffering of the Holy Father and ultimately the annihilation of nations forewarned at Fatima.

            Over the ensuing decades, Sister Lucy has explained time and again that the act of consecration requires that the Pope “choose a date upon which His Holiness commands the bishops of the entire world to make, each in his own Cathedral, and at the same time as the Pope, a solemn and public ceremony of Reparation and consecration of Russia …”

            6. But isn’t Fatima just a private apparition no Catholic has to believe?
            A: Far from it. The apparitions at Fatima were confirmed by a public miracle witnessed by 70,000 people—the Miracle of the Sun. Pope John Paul II himself declared at Fatima in 1982 that the Message of Fatima “imposes an obligation on the Church”, and he publicly attributed to Our Lady of Fatima his escape from death in the assassination attempt of May 13, 1981—the very anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima.

            In fact, the Pope himself has twice attempted to perform the consecration (May 13, 1982 and March 25, 1984), although Russia was not mentioned on either occasion, and the bishops of the world did not participate. These attempts demonstrate that the Pope himself recognizes an obligation to consecrate Russia, even if he has not yet been able to accomplish a consecration in the manner specified by Our Lady: a solemn public ceremony, mentioning Russia specifically, and involving all of the world’s bishops. Yet Our Lady Herself has promised us that this event will ultimately occur.

            7. Didn’t the Pope succeed in performing the consecration of Russia in 1984?

            A: No. As Sister Lucy herself declared in a September 1985 interview, the attempted consecration of March 25, 1984, did not satisfy Our Lady’s requests because “there was no participation of the bishops and there was no mention of Russia.” In consecrating the world in general on that date without mentioning Russia, the Holy Father himself acknowledged in the presence of tens of thousands of witnesses, both during and after the ceremony, that the people of Russia were still “awaiting our consecration and confiding.” The next day these statements were reported in the Pope’s own newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, and the Italian Bishops’ publication, Avvenire.

            8. Wasn’t the consecration of the world by the Pope in 1984 enough to fulfill Our Lady’s request?
            A: No. For her entire life since the apparitions of Our Lady of Fatima, Sister Lucy has insisted that Russia must be specifically mentioned.

            For example, in a 1978 interview with her confidant, Father Umberto Pasquale, and in a letter to Father Pasquale in 1980, Sister Lucy was asked the question: “Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world?” During the interview, Sister Lucy answered:

            “No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady promised: ‘I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia …’ In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country.”

            And, in the 1980 letter (dated April 13 of that year), Sister Lucy confirmed what she had said in the interview, stating in her own handwriting that “Our Lady of Fatima, in Her request, referred only to the consecration of Russia.” Both the 1978 interview and the 1980 letter (photographically reproduced) were published in the May 12, 1982, Italian edition of L’Osservatore Romano.

            Does not our own common sense tell us that if Our Lady of Fatima requested the consecration of Russia, then Russia must at least be mentioned in the act of consecration? We might also reasonably ask what possible reason there could be for not uttering one simple word—Russia—in the act of consecrating Russia. No explanation has ever been given for this mysterious omission in the attempted consecrations of 1982 and 1984.

            9. But doesn’t the “collapse of Communism” after the 1984 consecration ceremony show that Russia is beginning to convert and that the consecration must have been effective, despite its failure to mention Russia?
            A: Hardly. In 1997 Russia enacted legislation which discriminates against the Catholic Church and in favor of Russian Orthodoxy, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. Catholic parishes are required to apply for an annual “registration” which can be revoked at will by any local bureaucrat, while priests and nuns are given only three-month visas which cannot be renewed. The Vatican has condemned the new law as a great setback for the Church in Russia.

            In all of Russia today there are some 300,000 Catholics—fewer than there were in 1917, the same year Our Lady came to Fatima and promised the ultimate conversion of Russia, which has yet to occur. The Russian Revolution, which has been exported in various forms to other nations, confirms Our Lady’s prophecy of the spread of Russia’s errors throughout the world. Today Muslims outnumber Catholics ten-to-one in Russia. Compare this with the true miracle of conversion which occurred after the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico in the 16th Century: within nine years some 9 million Aztecs turned from devil-worship and human sacrifice and were converted and baptized as Catholics. Yet in Russia today, more than 14 years after the supposed “consecration” of 1984, we see barely a trickle of converts, and fewer Russian Catholics overall than there were 80 years ago!

            Even the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Alexi II, publicly admitted on December 24, 1998, that since the supposed “fall of communism” in Russia, Christian culture “is not only being pushed into the background and oblivion, but is also being mocked and ridiculed … as something extinct and unnecessary.” Alexi also decried the “rise of neo-paganism … totalitarian sects, black magic practitioners, astrologers, and occultists” in “post-communist” Russia.

            Meanwhile, Boris Yeltsin has been forced to cede power to the Communist-dominated Russian parliament, and his new prime minister, the former head of the dreaded KGB, has placed Communists in control of the entire Russian economy, producing what even the liberal NY Times has called “a shift to the left” and a return to Soviet-style government.

            Most telling of all: Since the “consecration” of 1984, more than 600 million children have been slaughtered in the womb around the world—including Russia, where legalized abortion began. The war on the unborn is the greatest war in the history of the world. Thus, it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that the period of peace promised by Our Lady if Russia were properly consecrated has yet to occur.

            The conversion of Russia promised by Our Lady of Fatima has simply not happened. This can only mean that the consecration has not been done, for Our Lady’s promises cannot be false.

            10. Isn’t it too late for the consecration of Russia anyway, since Russia’s errors have already spread throughout the world?
            A: No! As Our Lord Himself confided to Sister Lucy at Rianjo in August of 1931: “They did not wish to heed My request! … Like the King of France, they will repent of it, and they will do it, but it will be late. Russia will already have spread its errors in the world …”

            So the consecration will ultimately be done, and, as Our Lady promised at Fatima, “In the end, My Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to Me, which will be converted, and a period of peace will be given to mankind.” Our Lord Himself confided to Sister Lucy, regarding the consecration, that “It is never too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”

            11. What is so urgent about the consecration now?
            A: As Our Lady warned at Fatima: “If My requests are not granted, Russia will spread its errors throughout the world, raising up wars and persecutions against the Church. The good will be martyred, the Holy Father will have much to suffer, and various nations will be annihilated.”

            We have yet to witness the annihilation of nations foretold at Fatima. Must we wait until it happens before we finally do exactly what Our Lady commanded us to do in God’s name? In view of the accelerating decline of morality and the disintegration of social order around the world, simple prudence should tell us that we cannot delay even one moment longer the consecration of Russia, and only Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.

            12. But if the Pope feels he has done the consecration, what right does anyone have to question him?
            A: The Pope has never publicly stated to all the members of the Church that he has performed the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. On the contrary, the Pope’s words as quoted in L’Osservatore Romano demonstrate that he knows the consecration has yet to be done. In view of this, the faithful have every right to petition their Pope for the definitive consecration of Russia. In fact, the God-given right of the faithful to petition the Supreme Pontiff in matters affecting the good of the Church was infallibly defined as Catholic doctrine by two ecumenical councils: Vatican I (1870) and the Second Council of Lyons (1274), and is also guaranteed by the current Code of Canon Law (Canon 212).

            The good of the Church and the safety of the whole world demand absolute certainty that the requests of Our Lady of Fatima have been carried out. The matter will be settled only when the definitive consecration is performed, or when the Pope declares in an official, binding way to the whole Church that he has already performed the consecration in a manner sufficient to satisfy Our Lady’s requests. Neither event has occurred, and therefore the matter remains open to free discussion and petitions by the faithful, who have every right to address a matter of such obvious importance for the Church and the world.


          • Dear Margaret. IANS used to oppose this Fatima extremism for a long time at Free Republic and his Uncle was a LaSalette priest and so wild claims do not shock him nor do the many lies associated with the irrational extremism scandalise him.

            There is nothing new here – just the endlessly recycled claims, the ceaseless fund raising letters sowing fear and emotional panic amongst the faithful, and the certitude amongst the Gruenerits that all of this mendacious extremism is not only morally justified but a spiritual duty .

          • Proof that Fr. Dollinger actually said what HAS BEEN REPORTED WHAT he said is simply made evident by ” what has been going on in the Church and in the world for the past 55 years, ESPECIALLY BY WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THIS PONTIFICATE”. POPE FRANCIS SAID TO THE BRAZILIANS , IN RIO DE JANEIRO, : ” I WANT TO CREATE A MESS”. And that’s exactly what he has and is doing. This follows from what Our Lady warned us if the CONSECRATION OF RUSSIA IS NOT DONE IN DUE TIME. Can’t we see what has been piling up in the church and the ongoing natural and human DISASTERS practically on a weekly basis! Just ponder what will happen in the next few months all over the world (In addition to what is happening presently). Sr. Lucia said: ” THE BLIND ARE LEADING THE BLIND”. That’s why there are so many BLIND in the world, NOT EXCLUDING THE BRILLIANTLY SHINING ‘GUEST’ STAR AND OTHER SIMILARLY SHINING PLANETS. SOME ADVICE : PLEASE THINK 3 TIMES BEFORE YOU ENTERTAIN IN YOUR MIND SOMETHING COMING OUT OF TODAY’S VATICAN; AS TO BELIEVING IT, PLEASE, DON’T HURT YOURSELF.

          • The timing is important. He of happy memory Pope John XXIII, announced the Counsel on 25 Jan 1959. He allegedly read the secret on 17 Aug 1959 and said, “I leave it to others to comment or decide.” I think it is reasonable to conclude that he was not going to cancel a counsel on the strength of the secret. Was it pride? Did he fear that it would make Catholics look superstitious? Did he fear such a reliance on the BVM would work against the ecumenical movement? He left his decision to be judged by posterity. I don’t think history will be kind.

          • The Church officially recognized these apparitions. You have to explain why a recognized message (not a new Revelation) from the mother of God should not be important for the Church.
            Does it cause conflicts? Why is this strange?

          • Since the Secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960, it does not take a lot of thinking to realize it condemned Vat. II. And no, John XXIII was not a saint.

      • We’re standing behind you Steve. The late Fr. Gruener could tell you many a tale of being on the receiving end of unknown, unsigned non official official sounding statements coming from undisclosed persons in the Vatican accusing him of vague misdeeds in vague language with vague veiled threats from persons of dubious authority.

        We’re approaching the centiniel year of Fatima. The Devil isn’t going to make it easy!

        I wonder if this accusation against you and Fr. Dollinger can lead to a canon trial? Maybe that way we can put Benedict in the dock and finally get him to clarify a good many things in public, on record.

        • indeed.

          “It is noteworthy that when we presented the words of Fr. Dollinger as reported by Dr. Hickson, we were accused by some of reporting unverifiable hearsay. But now we are given partial statements attributed to Benedict by an unnamed member of the Vatican communications staff — statements which implicate us, and also Pope Benedict’s old friend, Fr. Dollinger, in willful deception — and we are asked to believe that the matter is therefore settled?”

          And there is our answer! So, Dollinger, a lifelong friend of Benedict, in fact DID meet with the Pope and has faithfully recorded what Benedict said. Which is the same as what he said in previous years about Fatima – not all of it has been revealed.

          It is common knowledge that the Vatican is a nest of vipers surrounding both popes with Satanists running much of what goes on there.

          No need to fret or worry. The Vatican communique is a lie and we are all well aware of it.

        • Hello One-Peter-Five,

          Permit me to buttress your view with my personal presence next to the Vatican on the Piazza Risorgimento at Fr. Gruener’s Fatima Center office on Monday – June 26, 2000.

          In the 2PM hour, ‘Bruno’ the Belgian journalist walked in and said ‘Hey american howzit?’ He then proceeded to converse
          in Italian with Fr. Gruener’s manager Alessandro Fuligni, so I offered to get some drinks for the three of us. When I returned, Bruno was leaving and bid me ‘Ciao’ as he headed out the door.

          Alessandro spent several minutes typing on the computer and checking his written notes. Finally turning to me he held out a single sheet with the admonition “This should answer a lot of questions.” I read and re-read it several times, knowing that I would repeat the contents at some future date.

          Bruno – ” This morning I attended the release of the ‘Third Secret of Fatima’ at the Vatican Press Office and was surprised that we the Vatican Press Corps were forbidden to ask any questions during the presentation.

          Also, the presence of several politicians celebrating the tenth anniversary of the death of Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli the architect of the Vatican’s “Ost-Politic” was significant. They included former presidents Valéry
          Giscard d’Estaing of France, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev of the SovietUnion and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi of Italy.

          Several powerful Prelates of the Church were also in attendance, including Cardinals Godfried Danneels of Belgium, Carlo Martini of Milan, Angelo Sodano, current Vatican Secretary of State and Achille Silvestrini of the Curia.

          After the presentation, I walked up to a Cardinal and asked: Your Eminence, how would you answer the criticisms that this is not the ‘third secret’ and the charge already leveled at the Vatican by Fr. Gruener among others that the ‘consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart’ has not been accomplished?

          He replied: “Without going into the problems with Fr. Gruener’s ministry; his people are in anguish over these matters, and though their hearts are pure, their methods of achieving
          this are not appropriate! They must be obedient to the Magesterium to decide the best time to do this [the Consecration] and in any event we must all be patient at least until the canonization of the Shepard children.”

          So, in two sentences the Cardinal rather deftly explained the situation and the solution being pursued by the Vatican.
          Your readers are naturally interested to know the Cardinal’s name – Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger.

          It is obvious, to me anyway, that the “Canonization of the Shepard children” has been derailed into some Roman
          alley and the “Consecration of Russia”, which promised a “certain period of peace to the world” is probably in the same alley.

          I don’t think Pope Francis will be the man to Consecrate Russia, but he is probably the Pope of the ‘vision of the Third Secret’ released on that June day. YES, Pope Francis is the:

          “ . . . Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’.

          Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees
          at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

          Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

          And where will Pope Francis offer his life as a martyr? In
          the “big city half in ruins” which is Jerusalem. Pope Francis will make his sacrifice for the conversion of the Jews!

          By this means they will be converted to the Holy Roman Catholic faith and Pope Francis’ successor will then be able to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and the Russians will also be converted to Holy Mother Church.

          Kindest regards,

          The four pages released by the Vatican on that June day are from the Diary of Sr. Lucia describing events and visions of Fatima, which include the ‘vision of hell’, the ‘children’s arrest and jailing by the mayor of Orem.’ or the ‘Holy Family on October 13th.’ as examples.

          Our Lady began “The Third Secret of Fatima” with the words “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be kept . . .” and it fills a single piece of paper in letter-like format. Hence the ‘two envelopes of Fatima’, one containing the ‘Secret’ the other the ‘Diary’.

      • Had you any idea, what you were getting yourself into? I think – yes, you had. So your will is up-to-date. You need our prayers.

      • Dear Steve – Just double your prayers for celestial protection; get others to do so too on your behalf and find two pro-bono, beefy bodyguards
        who would just love to take care of your well-being as you skirt the dangerous waters just above the rapids! We are all with you!

      • A priest once told me that the devil has a million ways of fooling us. Another told me to stay extremely close to God during times of diabolical attack. I have found fasting and adoration to be very helpful at such times. Those two things seem suited to keeping clarity of thought and action–the opposite of the chaos and confusion the devil engages in. May God bless you and keep you, and all the other bloggers who have the courage and love of God to speak the truth.

      • Steve, read Jeremiah 1: 16-19. God bless you in your work, brother.

        Also Today’s Gospel (Jn 16: 12-13) pertains very much, not coincidentally I might add, to this discussion:

        Jesus said to his disciples: “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now. But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming…”

        • Today on the Byzantine Catholic and Ukrainian Greek Catholic calendar is the Sunday of All Saints.

          Hebrews 11: 32 – 12: 2 was today’s Epistle.
          Matthew 10:32-33, 37-38; 19:27-30 was today’s Gospel.

          Tomorrow begins the Apostles’ Fast. It goes from the Monday following All Saints Sunday to June 28 inclusive. This tells you about the Apostles Fast:

          I know that TCs don’t follow the Apostles Fast, but given the gravity of the crisis in the Church, we need to pray and fast so that the Holy Father will get the graces that he needs to reveal the Third Secret of Fatima, I.e. the exact words of Our Lady which follow. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved….”. That’s the first step on the road to restoration.

    • Deacon, great point. Not one of the dozen heresies of the past three years has been recanted, corrected, altered in any way. But two highly credible sources break new intel on Fatima and whoaaaa… need to beat this back with both barrels. Keep digging.

    • This sentence of your comment:

      Nobody bothered to deny he told an Argentinian divorcee that “a little bread and a little wine can’t hurt.” –

      expresses something very dark and evil. It filled me with profound dread. It, and the fact that we have been conditioned to accept this as business as usual.

      And yet, there are things they still take seriously. Will they harm Pope Emeritus too? Will it be before or after they have dealt with Dr. Hickson, Fr. Dollinger, our host Mr Skojec?

      I think that the current Bishop of Rome can in no way be connected to the many prophecies regarding the great apostasy starting at the top – not in the minds of Francis’ worshippers, and not before the coming great deception.

      • Just a correction. That “little bread and a little wine” bit was NOT a quote from Francis, but was rather the wording used by a liberal/secular British journalist reporting on the phone call. I’m no Francis fan, but let’s not muddy the waters by getting our facts wrong. I know that this “quote” has been making the rounds for months and months, but if you go back to the original reportage (the Guardian, I believe), you will see that it is the journalist who wrote the story who put those words in Francis’s mouth.

        • Do you still not recognize that, in my church, the journalists have the authority to teach, sanctify and govern?

          Stop living in the merciless past.

          We must move always forward!


          Forward always!


    • This. SO MUCH THIS.

      Bergoglio the Blasphemer denies the doctrines of the Faith, misquotes Scripture, misrepresents the very words of Our Lord, and all we get is Lombardi faking his little attack of the vapours, saying, “How can anyone believes such things!!” Then two days later the blasphemies and heresies are quietly confirmed.

      But a little blog from the US says something about Fatima, and its DefCon 4!

      • HIlary, I am retired from the US Army. The highest DEFCON level is 1. DEFCON 4-5 is relative peace. I love your point- and your published articles!

        • HAW!!

          I just knew I was going to get that one wrong. I knew it was the opposite of the thing I always assumed it was, and then couldn’t remember how to get started. It’s like that dial in the fridge. You want it colder, so do you dial from 2 to 5? or the other way round?

        • Yes, the same Pope that tells atheists they can go to heaven without Faith, and that adulterers can commit sacrilege after “discernment”. Yes, THAT Pope.

    • Lord, save us from Vatican radio released partial quote, badly patched-up Casa Santa Marta homily summaries! Amen.



  5. It’s never a good sign when a position is defended that hasn’t been attacked. The issue is whether there is an additional, separate, unreleased, statement from Lucia. The super-trustworthy press office doesn’t address that issue. This communique just affirms that the section that they did release was ‘complete’ – but, no one alleges that it wasn’t………

  6. Steve, agree 100%. First, saying “publication of the secret is complete” merely indicates nothing more is to be published. It flat out does not say “the complete secret has been published”. I hope that’s not a translation issue. Lastly, the downfall of bad liars is often their lack of subtlety: “pure inventions, absolutely untrue”… um, I’m sorry, but that’s just not Benedict.

  7. A typed interview with the priest on the record would have perhaps been a wise move. If this priest wants to stand by his account why not interview him on camera? I agree with commenters that there is very likely more to this communique than meets the eye but you cannot prove that. Can you? Secondly, I am an avid reader of this website but it is not an accolade to be publicly rebuked by the Pope emeritus, and I wish your readers would not suggest that it is a moment of glory because on the face of it, your website’s reputation for integrity has been called into question. It makes it look like report based on something flimsy.

    That said, you have obviously hit a nerve and are clearly read by many in Rome. Another communique signed by Benedict XVI is unlikely, but hey, maybe this could be the beginning of long term correspondence with the faithful! Ultimately, someone is lying and I am confident it is not your team or you. We all know the Vatican doesn’t lie or make stuff up, right? Whatever emerges from this, I am praying for you and your team and mission everyday, alot. Truth will out! May God protect you and this mission.

    My stubborn belief is that the full Third Secret was revealed on 13 March 2013 and gets revealed more or less everyday since. Most of the evidence is on your blog!

    • That’s a good suggestion. A full transcript in German of the phone conversation with Fr Dollinger would help put to rest any potential criticisms that the quotes had been taken out of context.

  8. With respect to the Third Secret, I can’t help but think that a lot of good people have to be lying in order for the official line coming out of Rome to be true; and that’s been the case for many years now.

  9. The Vatican is pretty much calling Fr. Dollinger a liar. Yet, in the original breaking story, it recounts that when Fr. Dollinger was in South America, and he was telling a young priest what Cardinal Ratzinger told him about the Mass and Council, they both saw a plume of smoke coming from the ground. They wrote up a dossier and sent it to Ratzinger. So the dossier exists. They can’t possibly think they can get away with the overwhelming evidence of instances like this, and the whole issue of the Capovilla envelope and a missing text that contains the words of Our Lady.
    They ignored the original story because it was contained to traditionalists and “fatimists”, but with 1P5 making this story mainstream, global, and having the attention of a lot of people, they are thrown into a panic where they actually had to respond! We are getting closer and closer to the truth they don’t want the world to know.

    • Unfortunately or fortunately we are also getting closer to October 2017 and the message which was in sister Lucia’s words, “for the people”, still has not been given clearly to the people some of whom might wake up and repent before the fire from heaven, seas turning to foam, rising up and flooding everything killing millions and millions by the hour.

  10. Someone in this mess is either deluded or lying.

    If Fr. Dollinger isn’t too weak, perhaps he can visit Pope Emeritus and have a chat to clear this up. Surely they wouldn’t refuse an old friend come a long way to see him, accompanied by Dr. Hickson? 1P5 can take up a collection to pay for the plane ticket. I’d donate.

      • Count me in! I want to get to the bottom of this just as much as you all do.

        I happened to write a letter to Pope Emeritus Benedict about a month ago. I didn’t expect a reply, but I hope that he got it and has read it… Anybody know of any concrete way of contacting him? Or is my letter doomed to the secretaries trash bin?

  11. I do not believe for a nano-second that Benedict disputes the story that Maike reported. On some level I think Benedict is being abused within the Vatican walls. It may be a form of psychological abuse, via threats. I believe Benedict is a suffering servant of the Lord.

    • I’m not sure that I believe that he is being abused.
      I do believe, however that he is kept happy and ignorant of the happenings around him. It’s not like he can run out and pick up a newspaper or (most probably) surf the internet. He hears filtered news from MSM sources who love Pope Francis more than words can say.
      Who knows what he was even told about the whole affair. He is not young.
      I could have pretty well manipulated my MIL to say anything I want with a twist of the facts.

        • What is blocked to his apartment? What is blocked to the Vatican?
          He’s not in his own house.
          Keeping him in the Vatican keeps control as well.
          My husband controls the internet at work. He blocks certain things.

      • I am sure that Archbishop Gänswein would oblige and pick-up newspapers etc. & have access to internet et al. He looks after him and I cannot imagine that Pope Emeritus Benedict is left in the dark about such matters.

        • I believe that Ganswein is also, in theory at least, the secretary of Francis. They saw him as dangerous and have neutralized him.

    • What is being done to the Church is diabolical. I am surprised that many people aware of it are not prepared to consider the possibility of very serious threats, such as harming of family members, or dropping of bombs. It is not as though such things have not been done before. Evil is real. Stakes are the highest.

  12. *This* raise another question after the previous ones. However, my unofficial spiritual director forewarned me of the “bad media,” which have the agenda to dissolve the true One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

      • While he never explicitly told me which ones he meant – except of multiple secular media, I afraid he has a little bit trust with the Holy See (I hope he used to be that). However, in his sermons after the release of Amoris Laetitia, he implicitly condemned the novelties on Communion for the Divorced and Remarried, as well as on Homosexuality (I still remember how he emphasis the fire whch consumed Sodom and Gomorrah).

    • Get joyful already, as the cause of unity, peace and justice keeps moving forward. Unity between the irreconcilable, peace with those who swear to use our naivety against us, and justice based in rape of nations, individual women and in global deception.

        • Above average grizzly. Especially when I see all this gayness – involuntarily, the claws come out. I was born this way.

          • This fills me with the joy of love.

            Perhaps you would like to join my ghostwriter and me for a personal enthronement ceremony?

            In my hotel ballroom?

          • Hey, who am I to judge? (Funny how these crosses keep tucking themselves under the coat)

  13. To the good folks at 1 Peter 5, do not be deceived. Pope Benedict XVI has said nothing regarding this story. A statement issued through the holy see press office means nothing. There is no evidence that Benedict has even read anything about the story that you posted a few days ago. This statement by the holy see press office was issued by the handlers/minders who oversee what Pope Benedict is doing. Benedict has never spoken “on camera” or video since he fled, or was forced out, or stepped down. Catholic blogs are a dime a dozen and they have articles posted on a daily basis. It is interesting that they(the freemasons in the holy see and roman curia) have zeroed in on a little known blog called 1 Peter 5. You are getting under their skin. You are an irritation to them. Keep applying pressure, but, proceed with caution. Remember what they did to Pope John Paul I and Roberto Calvi.

  14. On the plus side, Steve, it appears that “the Vatican” takes 1P5 seriously. If they thought you were a part of the tin hat brigade, they wouldn’t have wasted the keystrokes to write this condemnation.

    • The talk of the tin foil hats is not very fair. People who do it, hardly ever admit to having been unfair and plain wrong, once “tin foil hats” are proven correct. It hurts us.

  15. The 100th anniversary of Our Lady’s apparitions is next year. I have heard various priests who believe the Blessed Mother will have her final victory in 2017 as foretold at Fatima (period of peace). If the Vatican is attempting to cover up the remaining yet untold portions of the third secret, their cover up may be revealed next year. Nevertheless, the Blessed Mother is not yet through under the title Our Lady of Fatima.

  16. In a later press conference today, Fr Lombardi issued the following statement:

    “At a recent seance held in the Vatican, the spirit of St Francis Assisi insisted on declaring emphatically “I never said anything about there being a Pope who was a destroyer rather than a pastor.” The whole idea was “…a misrepresentation and a fabrication…” the Saint went on.

    Now you have heard directly from St Francis himself, the Holy See expects you naughty bloggers to stop publicizing the apocryphal vision of St Francis and be nice to adulterers.”

    We had better believe him, after all, he is a Jesuit.

    • Hilarious. I have had people debate me when I point out this prophecy from Saint Francis, they like to say “oh that’s not from St.Francis really”. The problem for them is that books exist from early last century and are online with the imprimatur so there is no way to debate that this writing was attributed to Saint Francis long ago. It just never fit the description of anyone until, well, recently.

  17. They must really be afraid of the power of the Catholic faithful and their use of blogs and social media. I don’t believe a thing issued forth from the Communications experts, I mean, some of them resort to lawsuits. Let Benedict XVI release an interview or a letter signed and read by his secretary. This settles nothing.

    • Not only lawsuits, but they diss faithful Catholic bloggers. …what can one say when bloggers, adhering to Catholic teaching and doctrine, are labelled as hate-filled by a Catholic cleric who just received a communications award?

      • Exactly!! Who in the world would ever trust Thomas Rosica that knew ANYTHING about his past bullying? Thomas Rosica is a Vatican bully in spades!!! His ‘Charity’ is just a tad lacking.

    • Even then one could not be certain. There exist methods or substances that might move a holy man to do what he doesn’t want to do, or what he is unable to stop from saying/doing. We are dealing with a matter of highest importance to those who serve Satan. At this point they will stop at nothing.

  18. Add me to the list of people who don’t buy that this comment came from Benedict XVI and it just unsettles me even more to think that they are going to the trouble to discredit you and the others. Now I am even more convinced that there are two parts of the secret, the vision revealed in 2000 and Our Lady’s commentary, not yet revealed.

    • That vision they released on 2000 was pure balderdash btw. That part of the secret we know deals with chastisement. This is known because of the Neues Europa padded secret which then had the padding removed to reveal the chastisement. The Late Fr. Malachi Martin also confirmed it on radio. The “fourth secret” of Fatima apparently is part about the council being a bad council and bad changes made to the faith.

  19. Good for you, Steve; you are on a good learning pathway!
    As I stated before, the clients of Mary do their homework concerning the True Faith.
    We do not despise valid & reliable holy prophecy, especially this prophecy that comes from the Lips of Mary as affirmed by the Holy Catholic Church!!!

    Moreover, the vision of “the Bishop dressed in white” was not a description of the assassination of Pope John Paul II. That attempt was not even close to the details in that vision. The circumstances of that vision has yet to happen.

    I echo: “As the world rushes toward final disaster, we cannot allow human respect to keep
    us any longer from opposing publicly and without compromise those who have denied
    our right under God to the precious words the Virgin wishes us to know, and to that
    glorious triumph over adversity She promised us at the Cova da Iria. For the good of the
    Church and all of humanity, the travesty must end and the men responsible for it, no
    matter what their subjective intentions, must be seen for what they are objectively: not
    friends, but foes of the prophetic mission of Fatima.”

    The Living Gospel reading for this The Solemnity of the Most Holy Trinity:

    “Jesus said to His disciples:
    “I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
    But when He comes, the Spirit of Truth,
    He will guide you to all Truth . . .” (John 16:12-15)

    Ad Jesum per Mariam.

  20. I believe we can trust Saint John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI and Sister Lucia herself that the full third secret has been published. Sister Lucia herself was interviewed and confirmed this. My God, this is incredibly reliable evidence.

    Tom Mulcahy, J.D.

    • JMJ Dear Tom the problem is that it is a bad council and a bad mass just look about you, the statistics are the bad fruit. I am just home from Sunday mass the pied piper has gone through and removed the children.The very sad thing is that no one is prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes. All we need is for the Pope to put the tiara on hater the bishops and consecrate Russia, job done!

    • On the contrary.

      The so-called “interview” of Sister Lucia suffers from the same defect that a lot of all this other stuff does: It consists of someone else reporting what Sister Lucia stated.

      Sister Lucia’s “interview” was not a public thing, and the alleged statements she made qualify for the definition of hearsay in our jurisprudence.

      What people are saying, and I agree, is that they don’t believe people such as Cardinal Bertone. The “incredibly reliable evidence” is only as good as his statements, in other words, highly suspect.

  21. They are clearly watching your site, Steve. After all the madness that has come out of the Vatican, who can trust a single thing they say?

    Meanwhile, I hope they enjoy their celebration of apostasy (the Protestant revolt) after the 100 year anniversary of the miracle of the sun.

  22. It is obvious obfuscation. Not surprising in the least. Steve please keep going. They are worried about something. While they are reading your stuff closely these days start writing about the Consecration of Russia, and how it “shouldn’t” be done. Then maybe they’ll do it.

  23. Gotta hand it to Dr. Hickson – she opened a hornets’ nest. I’m not much of a 3rd-Secret-intrigue follower, but this Vatican denial followed by Fr. Dollinger doubling down would make a good movie.

    The facts are that Our Lady warned us about “the errors of Russia,” predicted WWII, and entrusted Lucia with a very important message targeted for 1960. Pope Roncalli buried it, and had Cdl. Tisserant meet with KGB bishops to invite them to the Council, promising no condemnation of Communism. Observe the biggest Judas move since AD 33. If that’s not thoroughly frightening, I don’t know what is.

    Pray the Rosary every day. There’s obviously a lot more to come.

  24. I don’t believe this statement from the Vatican is really from Pope Benedict XVI, but is rather the damage control. Too much evidence otherwise. This is the same press office that praises a dead abortion and divorce promoter.

  25. Is this the same Vatican Press office that covered and issued statements about what went on during the 2014 and 2015 Synods? You know, the one that also had a press conference on the interim report of the 2014 Synod?…

  26. JMJ Dear Tom the problem is that it is a bad council and a bad mass just look about you, the statistics are the bad fruit. I am just home from Sunday mass the pied piper has gone through and removed the children.The very sad thing is that no one is prepared to say that the emperor has no clothes.

  27. This latest Vatican spin seems to mesh with the typed letters attributed to Sr. Lucia who never typed anything, but did all her writing in long hand. The typed letters are a total flip of her previous writings. I think Catholics who show a cautious skepticism toward what comes out of the Vatican Press Office are acting prudently. They may be blowing smoke! Fr. Rosica has shown numerous times that he can’t be trusted. So why should anyone believe anything coming from that office?

  28. I am not a close follower of Fatima Secrets, but there seem to be very carefully and cautiously reasoned arguments here. I applaud the author, Steve S. for his due diligence, fidelity to the Church and a studious willingness, as Socrates suggests, to follow the argument wherever it leads. Not that these arguments reveal mysteries which remain hidden as before. Sherlock Holmes would caution us all with his systematic search for truth: ‘It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.’ Seek, knock and ask rightly; then, God willing, the truth will be revealed.

  29. As Pope Benedict said after only a few years of his pontificate, “If I have not said it publicly, chances are the words are not from me. Most everything written within my papal letters has been tampered with or altered.”
    The finger pointing would start with Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone

  30. I Pray, our Holy Father, is in a safe haven! I find it hard to believe that no one else is concerned about our Holy Father, Benedict.

  31. Sorry, I’m a faithful Catholic that just doesn’t believe a word that comes out of the Vatican “press office” and especially don’t believe a word they say about Fatima. Pope Benedict likely does not even know a thing about this story coming out and I doubt he’s even concerned about it and yet they issue these statements. Lets have the video of Pope Benedict saying it, then, maybe I’ll believe it.

  32. Unlike One Peter Five, the Vatican press office, or should I say the entire Vatican under this Pope has zero credibility for me. I will light a candle to St Joseph for Steve and One Peter Five today at Church. Stick to your guns Steve.

  33. To me the Vatican denial is really a confirmation of the truth of the Fr. Dollinger’s statements concerning the 3rd secret of Fatima. Why so?
    –Vatican Press Office has no credibility whatsoever.
    –Admitting the truth of the Dollinger statement would call into question prior statements from the Vatican on the 3rd Secret. Thus it is in the Vatican’s interest to continue the cover-up.
    –Pope Benedict XVI probably is not even aware of the Vatican denial statement issued in his name. The statement issued is curt and truncated and shows no concern for the folks who are concerned about the truth of the 3rd secret.

    Conclusion: The Vatican denial statement should be considered further evidence that Fr Dollinger has reported the truth.

  34. We are expected to believe that the words “attributed” by Fr Dollinger to the future Pope Benedict are fabrications, while the words attributed to Benedict by an anonymous representative of the Vatican Press Office are unimpeachable. Who is more credible? Fr Dollinger, who confirms what the future Pope told him, or the anonymous author of the communique?

    The fatal flaw in this “denial” is the assertion that Ratzinger never spoke to Dollinger at all, at any time, about Fatima. The Vatican has staked its entire position on the claim that the entire account is the pure invention of third parties, when Dollinger has just confirmed that he did speak to Ratzinger on the matter, and that Ratzinger did say the things Dollinger reported back in 2009, which Dollinger continues to affirm today.

    • Exactly. It would be one thing to say Fr. Dollinger misunderstood what the Ratzinger said about Fatima, but to claim that Ratzinger never spoke to him about Fatima at all, well, it just becomes transparently absurd.

      • Some considerations:

        6 days ago @skojec:disqus wrote []:

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

        Therefore he rightly acknowledges that one, if interested, should only concern themselves with “valid apparition[s]” [i.e. those approved by the Church, meaning she declares only that there is nothing in them contrary faith or good morals, and that they may be read without danger or even with profit; no obligation is thereby imposed on the faithful to believe them [Cf. Catholic Encyclopedia > R > Private Revelations – It follows:

        1) With this article and his reactions therein contained that do not submit to what the Church says as regards the Message of Fatima [here: and here:, he contradicts himself.

        2) Since private revelations do not belong to the Universal Revelation/Sacred Deposit of the Faith, they are not necessary to be believed in for our salvation, this dogged pursuit is at least a waste of time but judging from comments here and the reach of this blog, he may be endangering souls in the very same manner he was earlier decrying in his other comment.

        3) For those who believe we are in the period of the Antichrist and the false prophets, Universal revelation has already told us what is going to happen in the book of Revelation. Read it in line with the Church’s interpretation.

        • I’m sure you find this argument very clever, but it’s full of holes.

          I’m holding a sleeping baby and trying to enjoy my Sunday, but I don’t plan to let this stand uncontested.

          You might want to give it some more thought. For reference, I’d suggest you spend some time with Antonio Socci’s The Fourth Secret to see just how fast the factual errors in the official story add up.

          Also worthwhile: compare the authority inherent in a condemnation with that used in the promulgation the text of an already-approved apparition that in fact does rise above the level of ordinary private revelation. (A final text, I should add, that includes the word “etc.” where information should be.)

          • I’ve also provided those links. But when you say “the Church,” who do you mean? JPII? Ratzinger? Benedict? (Because there is a difference in their handling of this). Sodano? Bertone? Ciappi? Capovilla?

            Has a pope ever issued a signed statement saying that there is no additional text from Our Lady as yet to be revealed?

            Has anyone explained to your satisfaction how the revealed Third Secret could be construed, under any reasonable interpretation, to apply to the failed assassination attempt of May 13, 1981, on JPII?

            There is no official response from the Church. There is a patchwork cover story full of inconsistencies.

            Socci believed the official story, too. But as a journalist, he couldn’t help looking into it. And the evidence he found of a coverup is compelling. (He also found evidence that Pope John Paul II, whom you like to think of as “the great”, actually wanted to consecrate Russia as Our Lady asked and always regretted letting politics keep him from it.)

            Read it before you accuse me of putting souls in danger by questioning the official narrative of those who have proven less than trustworthy in their handling of the facts:


          • 1) Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith > The Message of Fatima – opens:

            As the second millennium gives way to the third, Pope John Paul II has decided to publish the text of the third part of the “secret of Fatima”.

            and is signed by Tarcisio Bertone, SDB, Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

            2) Its Theological Commentary is provided by Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

            3) If the message of Our Lady of Fatima was passed on by Lúcia to competent Church authorities up to and including popes, and according to you those authorities have provided “no official response from the Church and that “[t]here is a patchwork cover story full of inconsistencies”, what is that to us? it is between Our Lady, Lúcia, and those competent Church authorities.

            4) Your “me accusing you of putting souls in danger.” You judge:

            a) I wrote this: “[…] he may be endangering souls in the very same manner he was earlier decrying in his other comment.” And

            b) I have reasoned from your own earlier comment and from my understanding of the Church’s position on private revelation, and based on that reasoning and understanding, I have stated that “[w]hat the Church says on the matter is what is of interest to me.” Why then would you insist on directing me to Socci?

            5) On the greatness of Pope St. John Paul II, a reasonable person can readily make that estimation from this assessment by the secular world and media [] precisely in the matter of concern to Our Lady of Fatima.
            – Cf. Saint John Paul the Great []
            – Since his death, Pope John Paul II has been referred to as “the great.” Have any other Popes been given this title? | Catholic Straight Answers –

            Before Pope John Paul II’s death, Cardinal Meisner of Cologne, Germany, was asked, How do you think history will judge him: John Paul the Great, John Paul the Instinctive, John Paul the Charismatic, John Paul the Conservative?” He answered, “Like Leo and Gregory, John Paul ‘the Great.” On several occasions, Pope Benedict XVI has referred to him as “The Great Pope John Paul II.” One can rightfully call him, Pope John Paul II, the Great. – Since his death, Pope John Paul II has been referred to as “the great.”

            – John Paul the Great Catholic University –
            – Saint John Paul the Great Catholic High School –
            – John Paul the Great Academy –
            – etc.
            – etc.

          • Socci does good work comparing and contrasting the various statements and omissions, incongriuties and discrepancies between the various activities and statements of the ecclesiastical figures that have been involved in the Church’s aggregated (and not unified) response. There are things that simply cannot be reconciled. At least some of those responsible lack credibility. Some appear engaged in active deception.

            We already know that Our Lady’s wish that the secret be revealed in 1960 was not honored. We know that this transcends ordinary private revelation insofar as Our Lady’s message was for the whole Church and the whole world, via the popes.

            If you value the truth, read Socci’s book. No rational person can examine the facts and remain confident that the Church has been completely forthright in this matter.

            If you wish to remain deceived, that is your prerogative. Just as it is yours to continue to give the unearned appellation of “the great” to Pope John Paul II.

          • Pope emeritus: Third Secret of Fatima was released in full | Vatican Radio []

  35. It happens every time. Every single time I take a day off the innernet.

    Yeah, the Vatican Press Office has become just about exactly as
    reliable a source of information as Pravda in 1976. Blah blah blabbity
    blah… Take it from someone who spent several years covering Vatican news; if it’s a denial from Lombardi or the Press Office, it’s about the best possible confirmation you could wish for.

    But I have just one thing to say to Steve: I would say that a firm denial from the Office of Lies is the best indication that you are exactly on track. The fact that they went to the trouble to issue this weird and sudden denial is indication enough. It is clearer to me now than it ever has been that you are doing perfectly and
    precisely what God wants you to be doing.

    Congratulations. You’ve obviously hit them where it counts.

    • I would like to add also that it indicates that they are REALLY scared of the truth of Fatima getting out. I’ve personally never been all that big a Fatima person. It’s never really struck me as being all that central to the Faith. But this panic-attack denial from Rome is all by itself making me pay closer attention.

      • Whatever Our Lady says is always central to the faith. She is the closest person to Her Son and only comes to warn us at His request. I hope this smear from the Vatican Press Office gets blown back in their faces. It is the most untruthful news outlet ever and deserves to be shut down, but as Satan is running it won’t be. We must just disregard anything they say.

        Fr. Dollinger should go on television (maybe EWTN) & blow the entire pandora’s box to pieces – he has nothing to lose at his age. Of course, this wouldn’t be now happening if Pope Emeritus Benedict had not abandoned the Petrine Office.

      • Exactly Hilary! I have personally myself never been an in depth Fatima person. Of course the ‘controversies’ have been floating around for many years and I think most have at least been somewhat exposed to them, but THIS has me all ears because of the sheer panic displayed in Rome. This one, we must keep our eye on.

  36. BOOOOOOM!!!!

    Direct hit. You are above the target and scored a direct hit. Of course you will be showered by flak for your trouble. The cockroaches will scurry after kicking over one of their rocks. God bless you Steve and keep up the good work.

    My fellow Catholics, please support Steve and this website with your prayers and donations. He is doing incredibly important work here.

  37. Fr Malachi Martin had read the third secret. In an interview with Art Bell (it can be found on Youtube) he says that the third secret involved apostasy at the top of the hierarchy.

  38. January 4, 1944:

    Now I will reveal the third part of the secret;

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

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

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

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

    Then after a few moments we saw the same Pope entering

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    69 weeks after the signing of Amoris Laetitia is the week of July 13th 2017, the 100th anniversary of the giving of the 3 secrets to Lucia.

        • No, there is no evidence that that was part of the original secret or that statement was approved. With all the chaos and confusion in The Catholic Church, although Pope Benedict would never claim it is absurd to suggest that he was forced to resign, there is enough evidence to suggest this is most likely what happened. Why would you not bring our Holy Father to a safe haven so you could determine if he is safe or not?

  39. Zero humility, immense pride, and accusations hat probably one of the world’s greatest theologians and Popes of our great church is lying. Have you even read 1 Peter 5? 1 Peter 5:5-8: “Likewise you that are younger be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble. Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God, that in due time he may exalt you. Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you. Be sober, be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking some one to devour.” What I am fearful of are people within our Holy Roman Catholic Church arguing over “secrets” of end times like lions licking their chops, and professing that the one holy catholic and Apostolic church is a liar! I’ll have none of this and will pray against apostasy, because this foolishness is a sure path in that direction.

  40. Could not Fr. Dollinger make his own statement rather than have it reported by Dr. Hickson? That would eliminate, or at least reduce, uncertainty on the one side.

    (I have not read the comments, so don’t know if this suggestion has been made by others.)

    • I agree. A video interview/statement would be most helpful. Is there a reader of this site or a contact somewhere who can go to Fr. Dollinger with an iPhone or camera and do this? Given the gravity of this situation for 1P5 — a slap from the Vatican! — it would be prudent to take steps to set the record straight beyond any dispute.

  41. Benedict is silent and doesn’t comment the scandalous circus of the liberals at the synode, Amoris laetitia the french interview where Pope Francis compares Christ sending his diciplines to convert people with islamic violent conquest. However he speaks up and breaks his silence to discount the claims that he was forced to resign and the claims that the third secret of Fatima wasn’t fully revelead. Benedict didn’t have control over the Vatican even when he was the Pope and now as an old tired Ex-Pope he will have not any control at all. However we will not really know whether Benedict was forced to deny this claim or not.

  42. Thank you for this explanation and for refining the point. It absolutely sounds more like the Vatican Press Office than BXVI. It’s getting kind of wonderful to imagine them squirming over this. Yes, it may be hitting a bit too close to have the knowledge out there that the “apostasy will begin at the top” and to have Catholics openly decrying what they are hearing from FrancisChurch as apostasy.
    Stay with it.

  43. To learn what the still unpublished part of the Third Secret is and why attempts are made to mislead the faithful to dismiss Fatima, see on YouTube the documentary Akita and the Fatima Secret. After viewing this film you can also better understand why Our Lady of Fresno is crying in California (see the May 9 ABC News report or google Our Lady of Freso on YouTube). May the peace of our Lord be with you!

  44. In all this discussion about the Third Secret of Fatima, what is often overlooked is the fact that Our Lady wanted it to be revealed to the world in 1960. There was something that She wanted us to know, something which probably concerned our salvation. Those who suppressed this revelation suppressed it for a reason; that is clear. Was the reason because the “dirty laundry” of those in the upper hierarchy of the Church would be revealed? Would the faith of many in the Church be weakened by the Secret’s contents? Or were there other reasons why the Secret was kept hidden? Whatever the reason(s), the fact remains: the Blessed Mother wanted us to know this information. For our salvation? So that we could prepare ourselves and take steps to offset what She was revealing? For other reasons? From what has been revealed since then, by individuals who have read the Secret (and have spoken of it in veiled or round-about ways) some, at least, of the Secret has to do with apostasy in the Church starting at the highest levels. Even if this shameful occurrence is part of the still hidden portion of the Secret, is the resulting shame and embarrassment to the Church or to specific individuals worth the loss of even one soul?

    • Our Lady wanted it to be revealed to the world in 1960
      Likewise, she knew that Pope John would bury it. In effect, she gave a motherly warning to the popes, and John and his successors have defied her, right under her Motherly gaze – or more like Mother Superior’s. The abuse of authority is enormous, and Heaven’s anger is now revealed in placing us under Pope Francis.

  45. Sounds to me like you might have stired the hornets nest… Now you know it’s true… Besides, how trustworthy is press release from this bunch???

  46. Please pray for the Souls in Purgatory . As for the Third Secret the Truth will prevail. It cannot be hidden

    For it is not by power nor by might but by my Spirit says the Lord.

    . Grant to us oh Lord a heart renewed recreate in us your own Spirit Lord.

    Behold the days are coming says the Lord our God……….”

  47. Rosica weighs in. Judge for yourself what this little rant means:

    “Often times the obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners!

    “In reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people….We must pray for them, for their healing and conversion!”

  48. Okay, then explain to me why Goggle has next to nothing on a “Father Ingo Dollinger in Brazil”?

    This priest is a figment of somebody’s imagination!

  49. I fall into a category of “I have no idea.” But I lean towards the notion that of a portion of the secret still not revealed – perhaps some who say it has been fully revealed are innocently mistaken, for some reason, rather than willfully trying to hide something.

    Also Benedict says (as quoted above):

    “I would say that, here too, beyond this great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in the first place refer to Pope John Paul II…”

    I don’t even think that is remotely close. The vision of the Pope in Fatima is nothing like John Paul of unhappy memory.

  50. Perhaps we could get Pope Francis’ countless apologists to settle this by proclaiming the statement attributed to Benedict XVI “ambiguous” After all, if AL Footnote 351doesn’t clearly state that sexually active/unannulled/divorced-and-remarried Catholics can, in certain cases, receive Holy Communion, then nothing ever put into words clearly states anything at all.

  51. There is also this, unmentioned, possibility: Modernists in the Church have never credited the events at Fatima as anything more than mass hysteria on a hot day, not in 1917, not now, nor in between.

    Modernists control the Church and its agenda. Who may doubt it. They have neither qualms nor particularly guilty consciences, therefore, in suppressing and/or misleading the faithful with respect to what they have always thought of as an extravagant superstition.

  52. While I take a generally pro-Vatican line on most matters, I am always willing to change my beliefs when facts are brought to light.

    In that light, the following link is downright spooky when thinking of the Fatima timeline. Apparently, a UK general is predicting war with Russia to start in May of 2017. That would be the 100th anniversary of the first appearance of Our Lady at Fatima.

  53. Odds are Ann Barnhardt is right that the modernist don’t believe in any of this old stuff the faithful believe in such as God the Father, Jesus and certainly the Marian apparitions. They(modernist) most likely are so far removed from Catholicism they couldn’t possibly know the work of the Holy Spirit in any of our lives, especially mine let alone their own. Since most of us know somethings coming to a head and soon. Please read what I wrote below with an open mind because the Holy Spirit is working hard in me.

    I don’t mean to be blunt, but whats coming is a correction of biblical proportions. How do I know? I’ve had the gift of revelation ever since my first communion over 50 years ago and I have received gifts from the Holy Spirit multiple times, ten times to be exact. The fruit of these gifts is that the desire to sin is being removed, a process that has taken about 5 years. All the visions I’ve had over the years conditioned me for just one of the several visions I received in August 2012. This is the vision that should concern everyone.

    I saw myself standing in my backyard looking north at the beautiful clear night sky filled with countless numbers of stars. There is a mountain range 10 miles north of home and I could see the lights of Spokane reflected into the night sky on the other side of a hill. Suddenly the stars start moving in a clockwise direction and just over the horizon in the northwest corner of my vision I see light radiate from the ground up into the night sky. Then another flash of light followed by another flash of light. Soon the flashes of light begins to reflect off of the back of the clouds just like in a lightning storm. Then, I notice movement in front of me so I look down and see a man and woman struggle to make their way through all the smoke and dust. A set of headlights loom out of the darkness barely brushing by the couple and then I see a pile of naked bodies stacked in the background behind the man and woman, arms and legs entangled with mouths froze open in death.

    From a vision I received about 15 years ago I believe Russia will lead many nations against Israel that come to Syria in a failed attack which is destroyed in a single blast near Damascus delivered by(?)which triggers retaliations around the world.

    Confession and communion work as advertised. Prepare folks I just gave you the highlights, I don’t have a timetable.

    May the peace of Christ be with all of you,

    • The Nightfly (adapted)
      by Donald Fagen

      I’m Lester the Nightfly
      Hello Baton Rouge
      Won’t you turn your radio down
      Respect the seven second delay we use
      So you say there’s a race
      Of men in the trees
      You’re for tough legislation
      Thanks for calling
      I wait all night for trolls calls like these
      An independent blog
      With jazz and revelation …

  54. Dear Steve:

    I love reading your commentary because you are usually very spot on. But I think the title of this post, “On Fatima Story, Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI Breaks Silence” is very misleading.

    You write:

    “We are, in other words, asked to take it on faith that the statement contains the authentic, complete, and ratified sentiments of the Pope Emeritus on the matter.

    It is noteworthy that when we presented the words of Fr. Dollinger as reported by Dr. Hickson, we were accused by some of reporting unverifiable hearsay. But now we are given partial statements attributed to Benedict by an unnamed member of the Vatican communications staff.”

    So what is it? Did Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI break his silence and denounce the story or was it the Vatican communications staff?

    You sucked us in with the title of your post and then proceeded to tell a different tale.

    I have great respect for you Steve, and I expect better of you sir.

    • Dear Scott,

      If the title of this post is what you’re worried about, I respectfully suggest you’re missing the point.

      Google is brutal on titles. I tried several different ones that would fit their character limit, settled on one that fit while expressing the story we’re supposed to believe, then spent about five hours writing a rebuttal to it.

      It’s not exactly a bait-and-switch. We’re meant to believe he broke his silence for this, and many MANY people are uncritically willing to do just that. I mean to call that into question, and I have.

      • Dear Steve:

        Thank you for your sincere response.

        I don’t understand your reference to google re the title to your blog post but that is beside the point. This is your blog, for which I have great respect, and I am just offering my insight that the title to the post was deceiving to me. I did not miss the point of your post – I know you seek the truth and appreciate your steadfast mission.

        I think you do great work here – very great work – and don’t wish to take up any more of your valuable time with my opinions.

        Keep up the good work here Steve. May God continue to bless you and protect you. My prayers are with you.

        • I’ll offer a brief explanation nonetheless. From an SEO website chosen for convenience:

          Optimal Length for Search Engines. Google typically displays the first 50-60 characters of a title tag, or as many characters as will fit into a 512-pixel display. If you keep your titles under 55 characters, you can expect at least 95% of your titles to display properly.

          My original title for this piece was something along the lines of “Vatican Issues Statement Attributed to Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI on Fatima.”

          It’s too long. It would have been cut off in Google search results about half way through anyway. I tried several combos before giving up and finding the one I used. Succinct and free of spin, it gives the benefit of the doubt to the Vatican statement in the title, leaving me to do the work of questioning it in the text. (In other words, it makes my job harder.)

          This is just a little glimpse of the web sausage being made, but these are considerations that have to be taken into account when running a website that complies with standards of usability. Sometimes finding a catchy but workable title or an appropriate image take precious time away from the important work.

          For what it’s worth, I don’t like the title either, but it was the one I could make work in the constraints I had.

          Thanks for understanding.

          • Thank you for the explanation – I appreciate your candor. As we say here in Texas – you are a hoss.

          • God bless you Steve for your tireless efforts and the great diligence and patience you display in the comments section. Your reward shall be great.

          • Good insight Steve, us readers don’t always appreciate what you have to do to get these stories out and the efforts required to play google’s game. Most traditional Catholics know we aren’t getting the full story almost always so yours is a great resource. The immediate response of mainstream Catholic publications to this Fatima story tells me indeed you did hit a nerve.
            When I see an immediate interview with the Vvatican’s “fatima expert”, I can’t even bother to read it because I know it’s all bs whitewash.

  55. Wow, what I am really shocked about is that the Church can be discussing issues that can lead many souls into damnation like divorce/remarriage and sodomite unions. Heck, Medjugorje comes out with crazy stuff every week. But Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and Pope Francis remain silent. Something about the third secret of Fatima gets attributed to him on a traditionalist website article that probably most main stream Catholics couldn’t give a cent about, and he supposedly sprang into action?

  56. Very well done, Steve. Thank you. You are not alone. Please see the You Tube video: “Akita and the Fatima Secret” with current footage (last summer) of seer, Sister Agnes Sasagawa, at the opening of the documentary. Also read the book, “Defeating the Brotherhood of Death” referred to in the video.

  57. I have tremendous respect for Benedict and his beautifully formed and systematic thinking. But, in all candor, Alice Von Hildebrand is no intellectual slouch and her influencer (her husband) is far ahead of pretty much everyone in his time, including Benedict’s teachers – to the point of their not understanding Von Hildebrand – as proven by their magnum opus V-2.

    Also, I see absolutely no possible motive or Dr Alice Von Hildebrand to lie – on the other hand, what motivates a pope who could be forced out?

    Also/however – Didn’t he already state pretty much the same thing working on connection with Fatima for JPIi? I seem to recall that almost the same discussion tool place then

  58. I think we have infallible proof that this cannot be a truth from the Vatican press office. It is perfectly clear, instead of the usual ambiguity and vagueness.

  59. God bless you Mr. Skojec for defending Truth. The “official” catholic web sites don´t hesitate to believe in this dubious communicate from the Vatican without any doubt. Of course, the objections of the faithful are hardly tolerated.

    • God is truth. Truth is more important than popularity, more important than not being mocked, and is never worth compromising on.

      It’s sad to see how credulous so many in positions of Catholic influence have become.

  60. Steve, your recent article is gaining momentum. The more they(Vatican controllers) deny, the more your information continues to be credible. Like Louis Verrichio had just written, this is old news. It had been out there for 16 years. I do agree with Louie, though. Prepare for attacks, against your character, and even physical attacks. Freemasons are vindictive as hell.

  61. I see this topic as marking the watershed in the apostolate of 1P5, and depending on which path @skojec:disqus and 1P5 choose at this crossroad will determine whether or not the 1P5 apostolate continues to contribute to the glory of God and to the good of his Body the Church or becomes an irrelevant fringe apostolate with hardcore followers or worse, turns into a blog that harms the faithful. I believe this moment comes for everyone in their journey to the Promised Land.

    It was a year into the pontificate of Pope Francis when I realized that something was amiss [for those interested c. this post on my blog – and those that follow] and being social beings we of course tend to align with those who view things/think like us, and that’s when I discovered the writings of @skojec:disqus and his friends for example Hilary White and The Remnant Newspaper, and also others like RORATE CÆLI, LifeSite News, Mundabor, Church Militant, The American Catholic, Eponymous Flower, Vox Cantoris, Edward Pentin, etc.

    These words of the LORD “[y]ou will all fall away; for it is written, ‘I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered[,]’” made it clear to me why the Devil sought to have Peter and has been after him ever since because it appears he himself was head in heaven and he caused a third to defect, therefore strike the leader and he may harvest many souls. Therefore once I became aware of the troubling person and pontificate of Pope Francis, I thank God that I also realized the magnitude of the crisis.

    It has been decades now since I have been using About The Holy Spirit [] as a 10-day devotion to the Holy Spirit just before Pentecost Sunday. In it the author Francisca Javiera del Valle says [paraphrasing] that when darkness enters and the path is no longer as clear as it was before and it is as if we have no compass, we have to stick to Church Teaching.

    Let me return to the groups among whom I sought company:

    1) It was amazing that in some as catholic as they claim to be, a newcomer received coldness and rudeness, their comments replied to with arrogance, condescendingly and disparagingly, and yet some of those who identify themselves as “Trads” would beckon, ‘come join us.’ From those that I at least received a respectful welcome, some are listed on the Blogroll Sidebar on my blog [] and 1P5 [thank you!] is one of them, listed second, and first as an outright blog, though for some reason [now becoming apparent] I have for some time now received an inexplicable coldness from @skojec.

    2) I have watched how some get puffed up and spectacularly fall. For example Mundabor who during the canonizations of Popes Saints John Paul II and John XXIII, was keeping track “minute by minute” waiting for the Holy Spirit to strike down Pope Francis; readers of this blog know about Church Militant; cf. Hilary White’s own description of herself/her blog; the Remnant Newspaper as with Catholic Answers Forums, just dark; LifeSite News all about sensationalism [abortion and sins of the flesh], etc.

    Closing, if @skojec:disqus and 1P5 illogically and stubbornly stick to their current Fatima position [here it is good to recall CM’s intransigent position of never criticizing the pope when the pope himself welcomes criticism], then I do believe they have chosen the wrong path. Many here and on twitter are taking the speedy response of the Vatican as a vindication of @skojec:disqus and 1P5. It has occurred to me that it is just the opposite. With that response they have successfully marginalized and countered @skojec:disqus and 1P5, which to me is indicative that the apostolate was doing really well until now.

    Some of you who have perhaps followed my recent exchange with @skojec:disqus will note that I made him face his own prior comment. I would like to remind him of another reply comment that he made to someone that if they and those with him get eternally lost, their being together in hell will aggravate their suffering rather than bring comfort. @skojec:disqus, none of your supporters here and elsewhere on this matter, some of whom you count as friends, will be of any comfort to you if, God forbid, you get lost on the account of your apostolate.

      • I believe I have wished and prayed this for you, which has now become a custom of mine:

        “God bless you and yours, and his work at your hands.”

        If I were you and I believed I was doing God’s work, I would pray about it. I am sure a sincere prayer will be answered. I would then know what I needed to do. All things work for the good of them that love God. I believe provided this Apostolate aligns itself with God’s will, it will go forward even stronger. The LORD’s chosen do not labor in vain. It would also be a good time for stocktaking and examining what it is that lead my Apostolate to this point.
        (Here you may wish to recall a cautionary comment of mine not so long ago.)

      • Consider:
        1) The gist of the part of the claim I get was that Our Lady’s own interpretation of the Message has not yet been revealed. If you can be counted as one of those believing this, how would you then know what Russia’s conversion and experience of an era of peace meant?
        2) Holy Week is still in the rear view mirror. To some extent we can say the LORD was crucified by those who had their own interpretation of what the Messiah would be. Even the disciples needed Jesus to rise from the dead, give them the Spirit, and open their minds to understand Scripture and what they had just lived through.

        • These things are easy to define.

          A conversion would mean a return to the Roman Catholic Church, not a Russian government that works more closely with a schismatic sect. An era of peace means exactly as it sounds. We haven’t witnessed that, yet.

          • Your interpretation and understanding and hmm … seeking the supposed not-yet-revealed Fatima message so that what? So that Our Lady and her interpretation can confirm this interpretation and understanding, i.e., that it was right all along?! If one has the exact interpretation and understanding, why seek another revelation?

  62. Here’s how you blow this thing wide open. Since the “full secret” has been revealed, there is no longer a need for secrecy oaths. Start a movement: “LIFT ALL SECRECY OATHS TODAY!!!”

  63. Feb 8, 1960 Vatican Press Release “Sister Lucy wrote down the words which Our Lady confided as a secret …”.

    Have the words Our Lady confided as a secret been released? Where are they?

    • Re Question #1:. The exact words of Our Lady which follow:. “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved…”. have NOT been revealed to the present day.

      Re Question #2:. The Third Secret (I.e. the exact words of Our Lady) is kept in the papal apartment., which has been sealed since the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Francis didn’t want to live in them, so he took up residence in Case Santa Marta. Why? I don’t know, but as I said before:. Out of sight, out of mind.

  64. Isn’t it possible that Fr. Dollinger has a false memory? This is extremely common–as years pass it’s easy to embellish one’s memory or even invent ones out of whole cloth without realizing it. The fact that Fr. Dollinger was close with Pope Benedict XVI makes this all the more likely, since they probably had many conversations which could easily have become jumbled in his head. The famous false memory studies done at the University of Washington involves an even more intimate connection–that between parents and children.

    Fr. Dollinger could very well be telling the truth as he believes it, and yet it may not actually be true. It’s strange that this possibility wasn’t considered at all by the author of this piece, and it makes me wonder why, in the absence of clearer evidence, OnePeterFive seems so anxious for Fr. Dollinger’s remarks to be true.

    Hasn’t God made the crisis in the Church obvious enough on a natural level? Everyone, Catholic or not, can tell the Church has been beset by aesthetic and moral corruption in a particularly visible way since Vatican II. Churches are garish, music is sappy mush, Catholics pick and choose whatever morality suits them, and fracture into more and more distinct sub-sects.

    We need to stop worrying about whether or not we have the whole truth about Fatima, and start trying to live better Catholic lives. That was the most important message of Fatima. What we already do have of the Third Secret is sufficient: “Pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!'”

    We may never know the truth about Fatima, but our faith doesn’t depend on it or any private revelation, and neither does the solution to the crisis.

    • Isn’t it possible to ask the same questions about Benedict?

      Remember, too, that Dollinger didn’t just disclose this story last week. He first told it years ago, very close to the time it actually happened. It’s been talked about for over a decade.

      • Steve, you’re right, you could say this about Benedict as well, and also about Sister Lucia, who related the secrets three decades after they were revealed to her. And I apologize, I seem to have missed the fact that this was originally revealed soon after the conversation in question… I thought he had kept it a secret until now.

        I would hardly deny there’s something fishy going on here–Benedict’s retirement was already weird enough–but the larger point of my OP was to express reservations about becoming too preoccupied with that. For one thing, the text that actually was revealed was already shocking enough. It can easily be interpreted in spiritual terms–the half-ruined city as the Church itself, the deaths of the clergy and religious and lay people as spiritual deaths, the invading armies the forces of modernism. Does it really need to be spelt out further? This reminds me of the story of the rich man and Lazarus: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead” (Luke 16:31). Perhaps God wants us to do the math ourselves. We’re capable of it. Even such amiably moderate figures as Bishop Robert Barron admit that a great deal was obscured or downplayed after Vatican II, to the Church’s detriment The questions you raise here are valid, but I’d argue that we should recognize that the Vatican has given us what it wanted to give us of the Third Secret. We can take it or leave it, but it’s clear from this most recent denial that they aren’t planning on giving us any more.

  65. I just read every comment on the site and I am exhausted! There is something very unhealthy going on here with these preoccupations. We, as faithful Catholics can also lose our way and be taken down roads that do not lead to a more contemplative, richer and living serene faith. The lack of peace over whether this happened or that happened, the need to be right, then the disrespect for others are all signs of a presence that is not of the Holy Spirit. Mary asks us to climb the mountain of littleness, silence, humility, docility, prayer and contemplation. I am always asking myself if it is essential to take in so much info as I question whether it is actually helping me to love Christ more. That is the spiritual question I ask myself repeatedly.

  66. EXCELLENT rebuttal to the statement the Vatican Office of Propaganda( Holy See Press Office) put forward on this matter. I would strongly suggest everyone read the book by A.Socci “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” You WILL then believe the Vatican HAS suppressed the COMPLETE secret and the reasons thereto.

  67. I don’t know what to believe about the “third secret”. I try to distance myself from the wildly differing opinions, speculation, accusations. Even though I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that the church and the west can’t be saved without a Divine chastisement. However, I appreciate your impartial approach and respect for facts, and that you recognize the possibility that 3 or 4 popes may have had good reasons to withhold publication of the 3rd secret, if indeed it has not already been published.

    • “Even though I’ve reluctantly come to the conclusion that the church and the west can’t be saved without a Divine chastisement.”

      You’re not the only one. I came to that conclusion many years ago. Oh well, whatever it takes, Lord, though I may very well not know what I’m saying or like what’s coming (this year or next I believe).

      Pray for the Holy Father and pray the chaplet of Divine Mercy.

      God bless

  68. “As I stated in my followup to our original article, one needn’t assume that the popes who have potentially concealed additional information relating to the Third Secret have lied to us; if they fear that the information it contains will cause severe damage to the Church in some way, they may be using broad mental reservation in their concealment of the portion of the text in question.”

    It would be an error to “assume” that the popes, “who have potentially concealed additional information relating to the Third Secret have lied to us;”. Indeed it would be, “an error to assume”, as what they would have done, as objectively understood, if as Fr Dollinger claims there remains information from the Third Secret that has not been published, is to have objectively lied. To purposefully mislead, to deceive, with the intention of leading one to believe that which indeed is “not true” from its interiority, from within the context of that which is proffered to be “true”, is as existentially understood, to have lied. This stands, res ipsa loquitur. You well know that the intentional free will assent into the privation of the “due good”, for the sake of the “good”, is indeed an intrinsically evil act of the will, as “being” cannot both “be” and “not be” at the same time and under the same respect. Intrinsic evil is, as it always can only ever be, under any and all “circumstances” (ie: “situational ethics”), evil. To suggest otherwise is to place an affront to the law of non-contradiction. In caritas.

      • Thank you for your brisk response, Steve. Firstly, consider the source of your rebuttal. What is posited in this, “broad mental reservation”, is indeed double speak for the use of the double entendre’, which is the essence of deception. What matters most is the “intent” of the deliverer. If the intent is to bring anyone into an understanding that is less than fully true, as the one proffering the deception understands the truth “to be”, then they have acted as deceivers and are thus culpable for deception. There simply is no masquerade allowed for, from within the construct of the Truth, as His name is Jesus the Christ, and He said, “Let your yes mean yes and your no mean no. Anything else is of the devil”. In caritas.

  69. Fantastic journalism, as usual. Thank you, Mr. Skojec, for your invaluable contributions to a truly Catholic analysis of ongoing events in our Church and the various crises in which we find ourselves.

  70. Hello One-Peter-Five,

    Permit me to buttress your view with my personal presence next to the Vatican on the Piazza Risorgimento at Fr. Grunner’s Fatima Center office on Monday – June 26, 2000.

    In the 2PM hour, ‘Bruno’ the Belgian journalist walked in and said ‘Hey american howzit?’ He then proceeded to converse in Italian with Fr. Grunner’s manager Alessandro Fuligni, so I offered to get some drinks for the three of us. When I returned, Bruno was leaving and bid me ‘Ciao’ as he headed out the door.

    Alessandro spent several minutes typing on the computer and checking his written notes. Finally turning to me he held out a single sheet with the admonition “This should answer a lot of questions.” I read and re-read it several times, knowing that I would repeat the contents at some future date.

    Bruno – ” This morning I attended the release of the ‘Third Secret of Fatima’ at the Vatican Press Office and was surprised that we the Vatican Press Corps were forbidden to ask any questions during the presentation.

    Also, the presence of several politicians celebrating the tenth anniversary of the death of Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Agostino Casaroli the architect of the Vatican’s “Ost-Politic” was significant. They included former presidents Valéry Giscard d’Estaing of France, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev of the Soviet Union and Carlo Azeglio Ciampi of Italy.

    Several powerful Prelates of the Church were also in attendance, including Cardinals Godfried Danneels of Belgium, Carlo Martini of Milan, Angelo Sodano, current Vatican Secretary of State and Achille Silvestrini of the Curia.

    After the presentation, I walked up to a Cardinal and asked: Your Eminence, how would you answer the criticisms that this is not the ‘third secret’ and the charge already leveled at the Vatican by Fr. Grunner among others that the ‘consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart’ has not been accomplished?

    He replied: “Without going into the problems with Fr. Grunner’s ministry; his people are in anguish over these matters, and though their hearts are pure, their methods of achieving this are not appropriate! They must be obedient to the Magesterium to decide the best time to do this [the Consecration] and in any event we must all be patient at least until the canonization of the Shepard children.”

    So, in two sentences the Cardinal rather deftly explained the situation and the solution being pursued by the Vatican. Your readers are naturally interested to know the Cardinal’s name – Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger.

    It is obvious, to me anyway, that the “Canonization of the Shepard children” has been derailed into some Roman alley and the “Consecration of Russia”, which promised a “certain period of peace to the world” is probably in the same alley.

    I don’t think Pope Francis will be the man to Consecrate Russia, but he is probably the Pope of the ‘vision of the Third Secret’ released on that June day. YES, Pope Francis is the:

    “ . . . Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’.

    Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.

    Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”

    And where will Pope Francis offer his life as a martyr? In the “big city half in ruins” which is Jerusalem. Pope Francis will make his sacrifice for the conversion of the Jews!

    By this means they will be converted to the Holy Roman Catholic faith and Pope Francis’ successor will then be able to Consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart and the Russians will also be converted to Holy Mother Church.

    Kindest regards,

    PS The four pages released by the Vatican on that June day are from the Diary of Sr. Lucia describing events and visions of Fatima, which include the ‘vision of hell’, the ‘children’s arrest and jailing by the mayor of Orem.’ or the ‘Holy Family on October 13th.’ as examples.

    Our Lady began “The Third Secret of Fatima” with the words “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be kept . . .” and it fills a single piece of paper in letter-like format. Hence the ‘two envelopes of Fatima’, one containing the ‘Secret’ the other the ‘Diary’.


Leave a Comment

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

Popular on OnePeterFive

Share to...