Has the Consecration Requested by Our Lady of Fatima Been Made or Not?

33 thoughts on “Has the Consecration Requested by Our Lady of Fatima Been Made or Not?”

1. There has been no period of world peace as promised by Our Lady of Fatima and there has been no pope that consecrated “Russia” with all the bishops as She requested. Only Pope Pius XII came close but he didn’t know it had to be done with all the bishops. Our Lady warned also about the spread of Communism and especially in America and certainly we can see that today. Watch videos at Consecration now.com: http://www.consecrationnow.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=34&Itemid=8

2. BUT ISN’T THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA JUST A PRIVATE REVELATION WHICH NO CATHOLIC HAS TO BELIEVE?

   No, it is not just a private revelation. It is a public, prophetic revelation given by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. It is not to be confused with “Revelation” or as it is also called, the Deposit of the Faith, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. But public, prophetic revelation must not be despised. The Virgin Mary’s prophecy was confirmed by a public miracle and authenticated by a whole line of Popes. Also, its predictions have come true.

   So, while belief in the Message of Fatima may not strictly be required of Catholics as an article of faith, one would be very foolish to disregard such an obviously authentic message from Heaven. As St. Paul taught: “Despise not prophecies, but prove all things; hold fast to that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:20-21) The prophecy of Fatima has been proven worthy of belief. We should not despise it, but rather hold fast to what Our Lady told us at Fatima.

3. No, the full third secret has NOT been revealed and Sister Lucia spoke about diabolical disorientation so check out: Secret Still Hidden at http://www.secretstillhidden.com

   and also read the book, The 4th Secret of Fatima, http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/010207fourthsecret.asp

4. I am not very familiar with the revelation nor do I have any special devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, but I do not see how you can say Russia has been converted in any way. Only 5 percent of Russians consider themselves observant Christians. I imagine that number was more or less the same in the Soviet era(?). It is in any case not a real religious conversion. As for political or social conversion, was socialist Russia in, say, the 70’s more anti-religious then the EU today? Or China today? I’d like to believe that Russia has been consecrated, but I haven’t seen any conversion, political, social, or religious. Kind Regards from the Netherlands

5. No way has it been done. Check our Fatima.org

6. Dear “romancatholicheroes”

   Anyone who claims that the Third Secret of Fatima has not been fully disclosed is calling both Blessed Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI liars of the worst kind.

   Since the date of the Fatima disclosure by, the then, Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II spoke many times in public, including twice at Fatima, including a meeting with Sr Lucia. JP2 did say or do anything to contradict Cardinal Ratzinger’s disclosure of the Third Secret as being full.

   Sr Lucia has appeared in public many times since the Ratzinger disclosure and she has not “blown the whistle”.

   JP2 had a special devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, to whose intercession he attributed his survival after he was shot.

   I trust JP2 and B16 (who have actually handled the original texts) rather than various conspiracy theorists. Perhaps some people are more wedded to an exciting conspiracy theory that they cannot bring themselves to admit that an exciting and satisfying theory was wrong.

   From the Catechism of the Catholic Church para 66-67

   There will be no further Revelation

   “The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.”28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

   Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church.

   Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

   romancatholicheroes seems to be inventing a new category of “public prophetic revelation” which is not recognized in the Catechism as either Public or Private revelation.

   1.  @Leo Leo First, disagreeing with someone is not calling them a liar.     If you understand that Papal infallibility is limited to issues of faith and morals in excathadra statements then you can understand that the Pope is capable of lying as Peter did when he said “I don’t know the man.”   I do not think that they are lying but only in error.
       
      Do you think it is odd that such an important consecration is done implicitly and not explicitly stated.  It’s like every Mass intention being for “all people”?   Considering Mary’s specific request shouldn’t the consecration be specific? 
       
      Bottom line is that the explicit consecration of Russia by the Pope in union with all the Bishops has not been done as directed by our Holy Mother.
       
      I do not want to argue that but this blind confidence that whatever “comes” from the Vatican is infallible and good.  The Catholic Church has a long history which includes Popes who made errors.  Whether or not you accept the argument or not does not mean you are calling the Pope a liar.

7. typo correction (caused by having to register on this stupid livefyre thing).

   should read

   “JP2 did NOT say or do anything to contradict Cardinal Ratzinger’s disclosure of the Third Secret as being full.”

8. In the 1917 messages of Fatima, the young seers were told, “God is much offended.” They were directed that if the world did not ammend its ways, ‘Nations will be annihilated” but that, “finally, my Immaculate Heart will triumph!” said Our Lady of Fatima.

   It is evident to anyone with eyes to see or ears to hear that, plainly, the world has not ammended its ways.

   Could anyone really believe that todays immodest fashions, perverse unions, pernicious cultures, godless life-styles and evermore satanic practices are better than the offending Victorians and such-like of a century or so ago?

   The worst has still to come.

   For the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart!

   For the Coming of the Reign of Mary!

   For Le Grand Retoure!

   In Domina!

9. 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.

10. Leo Leo

    -Why did the Church not release the 3rd Secret of Fatima when they were requested to by the Queen of Heaven?

    -Why did the Church refuse to do it at the appointed time (notably the same year Vatican II was beginning)?

    -Why did the very Church which authenticated Fatima as being authentic by virtue of one of the greatest miracles of modern times, that even the masonic and atheist socialist press accounted was true, then later on fail to obey the Queen of Heaven sent by Christ to release the 3rd Secret by a certain date and to fail numerous times to perform the simple consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart?

    -Why did they hide the 3rd secret, if according to the testimony of several who’d read the 3rd secret including Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI that it contained no new revelation but only confirmed what we had already been given in the Bible with concern to the Book of Revelation and the End Times? Much like how the previous 2 secrets had do do with heaven and hell which we already know of, thus if there was no ‘new revelation’, what then was the problem?

    -Why does the 3rd secret as we are told was supposedly released and read by the Vatican Secretary of State following John Paul II’s assassination attempt, contain no words of the Virgin Mary as the previous 2 secrets did, nor contained any explanation by her of the vision as the previous two secrets did, and is delivered in a supposedly very interpretive and symbolic language in contrast to the previous two secrets, and does not begin with the words ‘In Portugal the dogmas of the faith would be retained etc.’ that was long established to be the beginning of the 3rd secret?

    -Why did Pope John Paul II then say that what was revealed to allegedly be the 3rd secret that we were told referred to the assassination attempt on John Paul II, was only the Secretary of State’s interpretation and we were not bound to believe it.

    -Why did John Paul II continue to say even after numerous attempts at the consecration, and even after the attempted consecration in 1984 which ended up being the same as the previous ones with no mention of Russia by name, and only consecrations of the world, then turn around and state clearly that the consecration was not done and the People of Russia still await it?

    – Why did John Paul II refer to the Fatima revelations as similar that of the Book of Revelation where the tail of the dragon drags down a third of the stars, often referring to the symbolic idea of the stars, the priests consecrated to God, being taken by the devil?

    – Why was Sr. Lucia, still told to maintain her vow of silence and never speak to anyone concerning Fatima or the 3rd secret or the consecration with permission from Vatican officials even after all of this had supposedly been done and over with? What was the reason? What reason would they have to keep her silent if everything was done accordingly to how they wished.

    – When we hear claims that the previous consecrations of the world were ‘accepted by heaven’, does this mean that the consecration of Russia was fulfilled as requested? Or does it simply mean that the consecrations of the world were of course accepted by Heaven just as any consecration would regardless of Fatima, but still did not meet the criteria requested by the Queen of Heaven?

    – Why was the 3rd secret asked to be revealed years in advance around the time of the Vatican II council? What does John Paul II’s assassination attempt, which happened much much later have to do with that timing of when it was supposed to be announced? Why would the Virgin Mary say that people will understand what is happening better then at the time she asked to reveal it, which was years before John Paul II was ever even considered a candidate to be Pope?

    – Why have subsequent apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Akita and other authenticated places, which refer to dangers and corruption within the Church, including divisions between bishops and priests, that are trying to harm the Church and bring it down, been referred to as continuations of the Fatima prophecies? And how does that relate to the supposed 3rd secret we are supposedly given?

    – With evidence we now know in hindsight of Russian infiltration in the Church hierarchy that is well documented, would not we conclude that there were attempts from within to prevent the consecration of Russia at the time? In which case wouldn’t it then make absolute sense to consecrate Russia specifically and not the world?

    – Given that the world now suffers from errors inherited from Russian communism, from growing atheism, secular forces in democratic governments persecuting the Church and trying to eliminate it, moral relativism, abortion, anti-family movements etc. etc. was not the Virgin Mary correct in stating from over 50 years ago that the errors of communism would spread, and therefore by consecrating Russia, God was highlighting the spiritual source of the problem which were the atheistic and naturalist philosophies that underlied Russian communism? What good is it if the Soviet Union is no more when the same errors of Communism have spread and infected the democracies of the West whose populations have adopted them? Is God only concerned with the system that runs states or does God care more for the quality of the human soul and morality and define a state?

    – If Fatima and the miracle of the Sun and the messages, as some believe, is a fulfilling of prophecy in Revelation, and given that Revelation is part of the deposit of Faith, then would that not mean that Fatima is then to be considered part of the deposit of faith? And thus it is not new revelation, but fulfillment of prophecy of the woman clothed with the sun, much like the prophecies of Christ to the people of the Old Testament and Old Covenant, and much like how Revelation prophecies Christ’s return and the final judgment that is yet to come for which Fatima is a prior fulfillment? Does this then not categorize Fatima, by virtue of what it fulfills in Scripture and its public miracle of the sun, and its 3rd secret meant to be publicly revealed and entrusted to the Church to do so on the given date, as not a private revelation, but one that is as many refer to a ‘public prophetic revelation’? Much like how John the Baptist, the voice in the wilderness follows before Christ, so too Fatima follows before the End Times? Thus matching up to the testimony of then Cardinal Ratzinger and others as to the contents of the 3rd secret, that the Church made the decision to keep hidden against the wishes of the Queen of Heaven in order to ‘avoid sensationalism’?

11. Outstanding! I could NOT have said it better. Thank you.

12. That was longer than I thought…sorry to make a big info dump there, but these are all serious questions.

    I am aware that all this and more tends to shed a bad light on what Pope John Paul II and even Pope Benedict XVI might know… This is not to dispute the good they have done, nor to claim they are not our legitimate Popes, we love and obey them, but there is indeed something highly disturbing about all this, and in light of the state of the Church today, it is clear something has gone very wrong. We do not know what the circumstances are, but John Paul II we know tried several times over and over again to perform the consecration and was very devoted to Our Lady of Fatima. As for Benedict XVI, we are not so certain about his position, but we do know his own testimony about what was contained in the 3rd Secret had to do with dangers that threaten the faith and turmoil from within, which the supposed 3rd secret we were given and its interpretation that is non-binding on Catholics has nothing to do with.In fact we do know that Pope Benedict XVI has stated that the message of Fatima is not over and is relevant today, not something for the past, and that he is trying very hard to get the Church back in order and reform the Mass, and rid the Church of the “filth” he declared was inside of it.

    To this day we can be certain that the 3rd secret was not released when it was supposed to have been. The 3rd secret we were eventually read is in contradiction to testimonies of those who’d read it before. We know the consecration of Russia was never done, but attempted numerous times, and what ended up being done was a consecration of the world, and this we are told would satisfy the requirements despite that the world was already consecrated numerous times before and yet none of the Popes who’d done it were convinced they had fulfilled the Queen of Heaven’s request; primarily because either Russia was never mentioned as the explicit object of consecration, and also because of the division between the world’s bishops who also had to perform the consecration in union with the Pope, but refused to obey the Holy Father! We also know that there were several attempts at forging interviews and letters by Sr. Lucia that attempt to say the consecration was done, but were exposed due to the simplest of mistakes.

    The EWTN letters Jimmy links to refer in the opening lines right away to the ‘consecration of the WORLD’ not Russia which Lucia insisted several times over, and we know for a fact that it was not the world but Russia specifically that was asked! This can be found as easily as checking references to L’Osservatore Romano where Sr. Lucia was asked point blank specifically if it was the ‘world’ requested by Our Lady, and she said, ‘no, it was Russia’! So right away from the get go, we know those letters Jimmy has linked to are forgeries by virtue of this simple mistake right in the opening sentence!!!

    Here is a quote from the interview conducted in ’82:

    “Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be. But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you . . . Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?”

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

    Now the EWTN letter opens with:

    “Dear Sister Mary of Bethlehem:

    Received your letter and, although I have very little time at my disposal I will answer your question which is: Is the Consecration of the world, according to the request of Our Lady, made?”

    And then the letter goes on to infer several times that it was the ‘world’ Our Lady had asked for in direct contradiction to every official document, book and statement from before!!! This is simply unbelievable! I respect Jimmy Akin a lot, and know he’s usually very thorough and logical whenever he refers to official Church Teachings on a variety of topics, but here I fear he hasn’t thoroughly checked all of this out, and plead with him to do so!

    This is a very divisive topic, and the points Jimmy linked to have been covered by Fatima apologists for awhile now. I highly recommend that all Catholics look up investigations and books by noted journalists and investigators and Fatima experts about this very odd and disturbing trail of evidence that highlights the failure of the Church to perform the simple task of having the Pope together with the world’s bishops in solidarity consecrating a specific country according to a simple ceremony… There are enemies within the Church that could be frustrating the efforts of the Holy Father and also the good cardinals and bishops to bring the Church down. And in light of many scandals that the Church has been involved in and the concern that laxity on the part of bishops and priests who made friends with liberals and governments to look after their interests are being betrayed, as is the case in America, we know that a lot of bad decisions and a lot of illicit men were given power to govern the Church, not to mention the infiltration of modernist and other heresies upon the Catholic faithful. This is a distressing time, and Fatima happened as many believe specifically to warn us about these times and to provide comfort that God indeed has foreseen all this and is with us and with the Church! We are not abandoned! And through the consecration of Russia, we just might have been given the means out of it!

13. Thanks Jimmy! This podcast inspired me to do some more clean up on the Lucia Santos article on Wikipedia. (I’m Oct13 over there)

    I believe the “Fatima conspiracy” boils down to over-devotion to Fatima. The Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy certainly has something to say about that.

14. Further more the commentary on the EWTN site that attempts to claim that Sr. Lucia refers to the ‘world’ in the same way the Pope did which supposedly included ‘Russia’ as part of the world. But this again directly contradicts John Paul II’s own statements following the 84 consecration that Russia still awaits consecration, and that the 84 consecration like all the previous ones did not meet the cirteria for simply consecrating the world and not Russia specifically as Our Lady requested, as if God would look kindly on our trying to argue around the semantics of words to escape what He directly asked for through the Queen of Heaven and directly contradicting Lucia’s constant concern that the world was never what the Queen of Heaven asked for, but Russia; because there was a point to it! Not to mention that Father Messias Coelho whom they quote in defense the letter, is said to have been stating that Vatican Officials were sending instructions to contradict what was previously claimed before and to support the 84 consecration, and furthermore had earlier supported the idea that Russia was not consecrated because it was not mentioned.

    “March 19, 1983 Sister Lucy to the Papal Nuncio, Archbishop Portalupi, Dr. Lacerda, and Father Messias Coelho: “In the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration … “The Consecration of Russia has not been done as Our Lady had demanded it. I was not able to say it because I did not have the permission of the Holy See.””

    Furthermore even after the 84 consecration, Lucia is recorded as having said that Russia was still not mentioned by name again even at the consecration that Pope John Paul II was supposed to have done in tandem with the world as EWTN claims, instead only referring vaguely to “that specific country.” which apparently he had to break away from the prepared text to do. And to top it off it seems that not all the world’s bishops participated either, as she said,“No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act.”

    Fatima apologists have kept track of these things, which only goes to highlight how a seemingly simple thing or just referring to Russia by name alone has for some reason caught the Church up in tangles to inexplicably avoid… some suspect because it serves diplomatic needs with the world and some sort of political correctness more than just following a simple instruction from God. Perhaps it also highlights the division of the worlds bishops who are not in unity with the Pope, but the Church has gone soft and won’t use the Pope’s authority against dissident bishops much like how many complain about how bishops don’t publicly rebuke the actions of dissident Catholics officials who openly support abortion and things contrary to morality.

15. With regards to the second EWTN letter to Fr. Fox, there is a history between Fr. Fox and his noted attempts to discredit the Fatima apologists who believe the consecration was not done. The Fatima Crusader gives an account of one Frère François exposing a series of letters as forgeries, seems about 5 in total, and that they actually come from the Santuary of Fatima and confronted Fr. Fox at a conference to which he apparently received no reply.

    Anyway, I don’t want to keep filling this combox up with concern to every little thing, the point is this situation with concern to Fatima and the Consecration of Russia is fraught with problems and must be resolved.

    The simple and easy way to do it once and for all, is to request Pope Benedict XVI to use his papal authority to order the world’s bishops to accompany him in unity, on pain of automatic excommunication if they do not obey him, to join him in consecrating Russia and only Russia specifically to Mary’s immaculate heart. The end.

    I doubt anyone who believes the ’84 consecration was done will have any problem with doing it again and clearer this time. Why not? What will go wrong? What objections do you have? We already consecrated the world several times over… Is it because you don’t want to somehow lose face against Fatima devoted who might say, “told ya so?” Ignore them, just say you’re doing this just to humor us… If anyone likes, they could also on separate occasions once a year even do specific consecrations for other countries specifically, America, Canada, the UK, Ireland etc. make it a tradition! I don’t see how any bishop could just refuse to do it. For one he’s been ordered on pain of excommunication, and besides what bishop in good faith would see this as being problematic? Why not do it? That’s what they’re supposed to be doing anyway! Once done, the Fatima crowd can no longer claim it isn’t done. All it would take is a little preparation and organization and be over in a day’s time. Once done, clearly once and for all without any need for vague language and allusions, just plain good old fashioned let your yes be yes your no be no say the black do the red plain words of consecration of Russia alone to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

    Over and done!

    We don’t even need any admissions of referrals to anything to the past after that. I’m sure the so called ‘over-devoted’ Fatima followers are willing to forgive and forget and to move on and let by-gones be by-gones once this episode is all over. And if nothing special happens, then that’s their problem.

    This is not ‘over devotion’ to Fatima. It’s simply doing the simple thing asked for by none other than the Queen of Heaven! And also to end divisions in the Church. If anything the Church has been on a downward trend ever since the year the 3rd Secret was supposed to be revealed… and it hasn’t recovered. Though the faithful that remained have if only become more faithful. But the world is against us. And the point of consecrating Russia was for the conversion of the people of Russia. Just like the conversions of the natives of Guadalupe, just like how Portugal itself converted from a fascist state to a Catholic one after its consecration by the bishops, a mini example of what the consecration of Russia would accomplish! After all ‘Fatima’ is named after a Muslim girl, but not referring to Mohammed’s daughter, but another girl also named Fatima after Mohammed’s daughter, who was a Muslim princess, and who was captured by Christian soldiers during the Moorish occupation, who then converted to Catholicism and being baptized took the name Oureana and married the Count of Ourem! That was the idea all along! And who are the Church’s main enemies today? The forces of secular atheism in one corner of the world, and the forces of militant Islam on the other! What better time than now to listen to what Our Lady of Fatima was warning us about so long ago?!

16. I read an interview from a few years back with Fr Benedict Groeschel, whose credentials in regards to private revelations and the like are very strong and wrote one of the best books on the subject for laity, “A Still Small Voice. Anyway Fr Groeschel surprised me by saying that he doesn’t believe Sr Lucia’s Fatima “secrets” are authentic private revelation, though he supports the original Fatima apparitions and calls the “miracle of the sun” a “theophany”. Fr Groeschel points out, the Pope has a prerogative to decide the Church does endorse the secrets and John Paul II clearly did so, still he clearly didn’t really agree. Indeed none of us must believe in any given private revelation at all. His take on Fatima actually rings true with me. Sr Lucia continued to say a variety of things later (after the death of the two other now-Beatified children) that just were not on the same level and it remains true that the Church has never endorsed all Sr Lucia’s later alleged private revelations. That doesn’t mean she wasn’t a holy woman though, Fr Groeschel points out in “A Still Small Voice” that even some canonized Saints had false revelations or were clearly confused about their experiences or in how they reported them. Holy people are not above being confused, mistaken or deceived.

    1. This is the book with the interview wherein Fr Groeschel says he questions the authenticity as private revelation, of the Fatima secrets: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Miracle_Detective.html?id=o3QX8Xhc9x8C

       Of course, I am not saying that there is anything bad about believing in them, or consecrating Russia to Our Lady, even repeatedly.

    2. @Elizabeth D Fr. Benedict Groeschel, has been pointed out by the Fatima devoted, to possess a suspicious theology. He apparently has been noted to say and even boast that he does not believe the Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church, and apparently denies that people go to hell so long as they are ‘nice,’ and is apparently involved with pushing forward an ‘ecumenism’ that does not require conversion to Catholicism. So, if all this is true about him… then it would be no surprise that he would not believe in Fatima, or more accurately as you say, its secrets as given to Sr. Lucia, as Fatima and the Virgin Mary’s messages in total support of dogma and conversion of all to the Catholic Faith, stands in direct contrast to what he supposedly wants and definitely what many actually do want: a Church that accepts other religions as being on equal footing and which seeks to get along and be tolerant of other faiths rather than to obey Christ to baptize all people on Earth and convert them to the one true faith so that they might be saved. It is notable to see the amount of commentary that has risen up since the Church’s decision not to release the 3rd secret, reorient itself during Vatican II and multiple failures to consecrate Russia specifically alongside the world’s bishops, to reinterpret or dismiss or outright deny Fatima’s authenticity, though that last bit is impossible given how relevant it was to the Church and its influential effects and it’s very extraordinary public miracle.

       Again this also comes to the point about whether Fatima is merely private revelation that no one is bound to or rather something more. So one must wonder how Fatima can be considered private, given it’s public messages, given it’s astonishing public miracle, and given that it went so far as to entrust the Church with a secret to guard and then publicly reveal to the faithful on a specific date. For this reason many put Fatima in a category called ‘public prophetic revelation’, because, as John Paul II also believed, Fatima could be fulfillment of prophecy that has been given in Scripture as part of the deposit of faith we must accept without question. And if Fatima does meet that criteria, then it is a fulfillment of something we as Catholics are bound to accept, along with its public messages which are meant for the Church, which has long been stated to not be ‘new revelation’ but reference to things we already possess in Revelation. And that is the debate that continues now, much like the debate that built up amongst the Jews as to whether John the Baptist was that prophesied ‘voice in the wilderness’ or whether Christ was the Messiah as the revelation they possessed at the time pointed out. It could be that Fatima in particular falls under these categories of foretold prophecy that is in Scripture accomplished in our time, that thus Catholics must accept. And this is something that indeed can be debated and discussed today! But of course the full authority for definitively interpreting this will fall under the Church’s authority and not public discourse. As of now that is an open question.

       Furthermore with regards to everything Sr. Lucia may or may not have said, we are not concerned with everything she said which may be true or false. We are specifically here concerned with the 3rd Secret and more specifically to the consecration of Russia. It is long documented, long understood, long authenticated that what was required, and understood by commentators and even every subsequent Pope that what was requested was Russia alone and not the world, and that it be done in union with the world’s bishops. And the 3rd secret was never revealed when it was supposed to have, and what we were eventually given contradicts information that we did know about the 3rd secret from those who’d read it earlier, including Pope Benedict XVI who as Cardinal Ratzinger had read it and was quoted as saying it referred to the end times, and dangers that threaten the faith and of widespread apostasy; which the vision of the dead Pope and its non binding interpretation to John Paul II’s failed assassination, do not in any way reflect, nor does it contain words of the Virgin Mary, nor begins with the phrase long associated with it that “In Portugal, the dogmas of the faith shall always be preserved etc.”

       So no, those who are aware of the history of the Church’s handling of Fatima and everything that’s been documented, must disagree with Jimmy’s conclusion that all this is “without basis.” To this day, Russia is not converted. God cares more about morality and the Catholic Faith rather than democracy and the state. Christian morality is at a rock bottom state in Russia and around the world. Nations, cultures and people are in danger of being annihilated through population control agendas and contraception and abortion has virtually annihilated entire generations of people that should exist now in the West and especially Russia which is causing the government there to panic! And that same danger threatens the Western worlds of population decline! This is how in the end Nations of people will cease to exist! The State structure will remain, but the nation i.e. its people, which are more important to God than its system of governance, are disappearing! And it is disappearing because its people practice a self-annihilation through the abominable murderous practice of abortion! This is what it means! Russia is going to be the first nation to disappear unless the Church acts! And in order for the people of Russia to turn away from abortion and contraceptive sex, requires a CONVERSION of heart to the Catholic faith and morality which is the ONLY SOLUTION!

       1. @Johnno @Elizabeth D Hi Johnno, although I’m sure Fr Groeschel is not a Feeneyite, I’m also completely sure that if you asked him he would say he agrees with the Catholic understanding of “no salvation outside the Church” as explained in Dominus Iesus. It is not at all credible to think that Fr Groeschel disagrees with that document, without some strong evidence. Let us not be presumptuous one bit, but there are not any of us in this life who know for sure who’s damned or saved.

          The “third secret” was released and Cdl Ratzinger wrote an excellent theological commentary accompanying it. If that were not her third secret, it does seem to me Sr Lucia would have said something. If Russia had not been consecrated, it does seem to me that she would not have affirmed that it had been.

          If only we had all been adhering more closely to the teaching of St John of the Cross, the Mystical Doctor, to generally do our best to ignore visions and locutions–and he said this as someone who most certainly believed authentic ones occur frequently, and that the light and consolation they give can benefit us. If it is from God, he said, the good will come anyway. If it is from our subconscious, we will avoid becoming confused, if it is from the devil we will avoid harm. Who ever heard of good coming from a suspicious and adversarial stance against legitimate ecclesial authority, on the basis of attachment to a private revelation, which is actually inherently something about which there can be no absolute certainty, which never calls for the assent of Catholic faith, even though it may encourage us or guide us within our times, in a way consistent with the public revelation, the tradition and Magisterium of the Church.

          1. @Elizabeth DI listened to Jimmy Akin’s commentary and reading of what Cardinal Ratzinger had said with regards to the entirety of the 3rd secret. Something those who follow Fatima are familiar with. But the problem that must be highlighted is that he is contradicting in 2000, what he had said in 1984 to Jesus Magazine. I’ll put it here:

             =========

             “Cardinal Ratzinger, have you read what is called the Third Secret of Fatima: i.e., the one that Sister Lucia had sent to Pope John XXIII and which the latter did not wish to make known and consigned to the Vatican archives?” ”

             —-Yes, I have read it.”

             “Why has it not been revealed?”

             —–“Because, according to the judgement of the Popes, it adds nothing (literally: ‘nothing different’) to what a Christian must know concerning what derives from Revelation: i.e., a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’ (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public – at least for the time being – it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: ‘for sensationalism’). But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions, first of all that of Fatima in what is already known of what its message contains. Conversion and penitence are the essential conditions for ‘salvation’.”

             =======

             Now compare that statement to what was revealed to be the 3rd Secret of the vision of the bishop in white being killed while leading a procession of the faithful who are also killed by soldiers, and its interpretation that it refers to the past event of the failed assassination attempt on John Paul II. Is it in Scripture? Is it in other Marian apparitions? Is it to do with the end times? Etc.

             So either Ratzinger was mistaken, or dare I say it, lying, in 84, or he was mistaken or dare I say it, lied in 2000. Or perhaps as some believe, he did not lie, but used careful sophistry to say something different and far removed from the actual conversation in order to prevent telling the truth and prevent lying. Let me be clear… I hate the very idea of suggesting that Cardinal Ratzinger may have lied. Something in me does not want to believe it and seeks an alternative explanation. Perhaps he was forced to play along or something…

             But there is also, what certain folks believe that Ratzinger was neither lying nor telling us the entire truth… In other words through the sophistic use of language, what was revealed to us instead was not the 3rd secret in its entirety as written down by Sr. Lucia and said explicitly by the Virgin Mary, but rather that they released a part of it, then stated using verbal gymnastics that the third secret in its ‘entirety’ was revealed because it was inferred to be implicitly contained in that vision… and then the Vatican Secretary of State attached his own interpretation of it, that it referred to the assassination attempt on John Paul II’ and gave the impression that his interpretation was the official stance of the Church.

             Of interest is that one Fr. Schweigl who interviewed Sr. Lucia under Pope Pius XII’s permission in 1952 stated when asked:

             ====

             “I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the third secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically — although I must say nothing — would have to be the continuation of the words: In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”

             ====

             This is now all the more interesting… and further it goes on to suggest that what was released to us in 2000 was only the first part of the secret which we are told in essence contains symbolically the ‘entirety’ of the 3rd secret…which could well be the case… But we are denied the full interpretation of it that we know the Virgin Mary is supposed to give us as she did with regards to the first 2 secrets, and that it concerns Portugal and the dogmas of the faith as a preceding sentence.

             You can look it all up yourself. Of interest, a new book written by an Italian mainstream journalist, Antonio Socci was released entitled ‘The 4th Secret of Fatima’, the title actually referring to the portion of the 3rd secret that we were not told, that contains the words of the Virgin Mary and logically follows the statement about Portugal and the dogmas of the faith. Of interest is that Socci originally began that book to support the Vatican’s stance that the 3rd secret was fully released and consecration of Russia done and to refute the Fatima devotees who insisted otherwise and put an end to the matter. But after investigating it, he switched sides to support the Fatima devotees instead, because the trail of evidence forced him to…

          2. Our Holy Father is human and Popes and cardinals can make mistakes and even do wrong or make faulty decisions with our best interests in mind. This does not contradict the teaching of Papal Infallibility, nor the glory of the Church. History knows we’ve had illicit Popes before. And as to the entire quality of Pope Benedict XVI, only God can know… But what remains clear is the the 3rd Secret we are given and what was said about it earlier, is plainly contradictory.

             We do not know the full circumstances of events surround it. Some suggest that it revolves around insidious things going on within Vatican II, which as we know has also been a source of great division in our Church in whose ‘spirit’ many wrong things have been done to destroy and undermine the faith. If the secret had to do with the council, then it would not be odd to think that ill intentioned men who were pushing to reorient the Church and change the Mass, would also be hostile to Fatima and try to suppress it, the secret and the consecration which may have been provided as an act of faith to prevent future events from occurring.

             As for the case with Sr. Lucia, she was ordered by the Vatican to never discuss it or speak of it without their explicit permission. A duty she, as a religious, obeyed to her death, because the Lord values obedience to her superiors no-matter-what. A mark of a true saint. She never spoke about it after that because that vow of silence even following the release of the supposed 3rd secret and ’84 consecration was never lifted, and if everything was done and revealed well enough, you’d wonder why not? As then she would’ve talked openly about it and the matter would be settled. Instead for years we had to trust in a few select people telling us to trust in private non recorded interviews and letters that they possessed under permission of Vatican officials who’d selectively chosen them, that she had said the ’84 consecration fulfilled Our Lady’s wishes, and that the 3rd secret was released, despite the many glaring contradictions that had been credibly documented for years prior. No other 3rd party was allowed access to speak with her to do the simple task of corroborating it. You can find all these details also documented by the Fatima devotees.

             With respect to John of the Cross, he advises wisely, but he of course is saying it out of concern for ones that may be inauthentic and simply sensational wickedness and not from God. St. Paul advises us to test all things, miracles, visions and not despise them out of hand. Fatima has been authenticated by the Church and proclaimed worthy of belief, it was authenticated by one of the greatest miracles ever witnessed, and witnessed by thousands including enemies of the Church who testified that all they had seen was true. Following her requests to consecrate Portugal, the country overthrew its atheistic socialist government and transformed into one enshrined in Catholic morality. Many were converted. The transformation of Portugal was borderline miraculous, and before we have the example with the miraculous conversions of natives in Guadalupe. This transformation of Portugal following its consecration was intended as a mini example of what would occur were Russia to be consecrated.

             Now with concern to the division over Fatima. I would not call this division in the same way as liberal Catholics or schismatics within the Church. Those who follow Fatima, if anything, can be accused of being ‘too orthodox’… but none would dare leave the Church or deny the Pope’s authority, or deny Catholic morality, or deny Catholicism as the one and only true religion, or deny heaven and hell, as this is contrary to everything Fatima was supposed to be about. But there do exist divisions in the Church on certain topics and one must discern what these are. Catholics have a responsibility and a right to petition the Church for answers to difficult questions, especially when it has to do with their safety and their salvation. Catholics must not idly stand by if they suspect that a member of the Church hierarchy may be doing something wrong. Members of the Church can do wrong and have done wrong and dangerous things. This sort of thing is precisely why the sex abuse crisis happened, why there is widespread apostasy, contraceptive use, abortion, religious indifferentism etc. because our shepherds were lax to correct and confront errors when they arose or take steps to prevent them. Now we even know of many priests and even bishops who collaborate with dissident Catholics and immoral groups and defy the Holy Father and scorn Church teachings openly. All of this by the way that we witness today lining up with prophecies in the Bible, with typology contrasts to Israel of the OT, with the Fatima messages and more in line with Ratzinger’s original description of the 3rd secret and along with other Marian apparitions regarding division within the Church between priests and bishops and the loss of faith.

             Sorry for the lengthy reply… I’d encourage you and anyone to look into the case more carefully. It is better that scandals arise than for the truth to be silenced, as Pope Gregory the Great put it…

17. To certain previous commentators:

    Private revelation isn’t Public Revelation and thus is not obligary (Verbum Domini, 14) and popular piety isn’t the Liturgy and thus is not obligary (Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, 11). Take a minute to learn about the Church’s Theology of Revelation: http://catholicity.wikia.com/wiki/Theology_of_Revelation

    No one is bad for not believing in a revelation or doing a certain pious exercise, nor is not believing in a revelation or doing a certain pious exercise a sign that someone is bad. Over-devotion to revelations or pious exercises is a fruit of imprudence. Just as a revelation isn’t true simply because it has good fruits, so over-devotion isn’t proper devotion simply because it’s devotion to a revelation, to a saint, or to God. The moral life is spiritual worship and you cannot separate charity and truth. I don’t need to go over the cardinal virtues – I hope! – so I’ll just add the passages referenced above from the Church documents.

    Verbum Domini, 14: Consequently the Synod pointed to the need to “help the faithful to distinguish the word of God from private revelations” whose role “is not to ‘complete’ Christ’s definitive revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history”…A private revelation can introduce new emphases, give rise to new forms of piety, or deepen older ones. It can have a certain prophetic character (cf. 1 Th 5:19-21) and can be a valuable aid for better understanding and living the Gospel at a certain time; consequently it should not be treated lightly. It is a help which is proffered, but its use is not obligatory.

    Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy, 11: The faithful should be made conscious of the preeminence of the Liturgy over any other possible form of legitimate Christian prayer. While sacramental actions are necessary to life in Christ, the various forms of popular piety are properly optional. Such is clearly proven by the Church’s precept which obliges attendance at Sunday Mass. No such obligation, however, has obtained with regard to pious exercises, notwithstanding their worthiness or their widespread diffusion. Such, however, may be assumed as obligations by a community or by individual members of the faithful.

18. The Mother of God has asked for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart so therefore the popes and Fr Benedict Groeschel need to listen and obey her requests. The Miracle of the Sun was witnessed by over 70,000 people. It is not a private revelation but a public, prophetic revelation.

    Wake up! You have been deceived by the very Freemasons and communists that have infiltrated the Vatican. Read the book, The Devil’s Final Battle online at http://www.devilsfinalbattle.com/content2.htm

    1. @romancatholicheroes Actually, the Church makes a clear and important distinction between public revelation (Sacred Scripture and the Magisterial teaching of the Church) and private revelation given to individuals (the term for this is private revelation, even if it has approval by the Church and devotion to it is widespread). Catholic teaching is that private revelation can only be considered if it is consistent with public revelation, and that an assent of faith is not owed to any private revelation, as we must to the public revelation. So, what you have said here is mistaken. No one is obliged to be devoted to Fatima, whereas we must believe Catholic doctrine and do what the Church requests.

19. Again, an excellent post. As I understand it, Pope JPII wanted to consecrate Russia, but had 3 problems:

    1. The Russian Orthodox Church wanted no part of it,

    2. Many bishops would not go along with it and

    3. (could well be a rumor, (came from former KGB agent who *supposedly* said) that Chernobyl was NOT an accident, and the same would happen to Poland if he consecrated Russia.

20. Watch video on the Fatima Message imposes an obligation on Popes, Bishops, etc. http://www.consecrationnow.com/index.php?Itemid=8&catid=18&id=61%3Athe-fatima-message-imposes-an-obligation-on-the-popes-bishops-a-church&option=com_content&view=article

21. The distinctions between private and public revelation are duly noted as foxywebs and Elizabeth have said, and what they have said should rightfully be paid attention to. 
     
    But what is being argued here is ‘Is Fatima a fulfillment of public revelation in Scripture therefore making it part of the Deposit of Faith’? Much like it was asked ‘Is the appearance of John the Baptist fulfillment of Scripture’? Or in a greater sense, ‘Is Christ who was born of the virgin, performed extraordinary public miracles and then died and rose from the dead, being witnessed by public and private individuals the fulfillment of Scripture’? How were the people of that time supposed to know whether the appearances of John and Christ were only a period of the private actions of two individuals that were unique but not binding on the Jews, or were they in fact fulfillment of prophecy that they were to expect and therefore binding on them to follow and obey?
     
    It seems the Religious Hierarchy of the Temple, who were also the proper authority on the matter who Christ defended despite their character as deriving from the Chair of Moses, believed otherwise, or being complicit in how they handled it, tried to suppress or ignore it to avoid implicating themselves and facing the truth of their actions despite that they actually believed they were working for the good of those placed in their charge. Is it then not frightfully possible that our own Church leaders could likewise be capable of also failing in this regard, without of course contradicting the Church’s true mission and infallibility that Christ promised her? As one reads the Scriptures and studies the history of the Church, it is remarkable the repetition of historic patterns that occur over and over and over again. That the religious authorities always become entrenched in the secular and worldly powers and collaborate with them for the sake of their people, but fearing them more than they fear God allow themselves to be controlled and the people to be corrupted. and fearing reprisals from the world should they step out of line, fight off any movement that threatens to disturb the balance of ‘peace’ and armistice that has been created between the church and state. But in the end, as happened to Israel and as is happening to the Church everywhere, particularly at this time in America, the state will always in the end, despite the religious leader’s efforts of finding compromises, slowly devour and eventually destroy the Church.

    1.  @Johnno Fatima is private revelation. This is what the Magisterium herself has stated: Both in the infallible declaration of the nature of Public Revelation in Dei Verbum (“The Christian dispensation, therefore, as the new and definitive covenant, will never pass away and we now await no further new public revelation before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ (see 1 Tim. 6:14 and Tit. 2:13)”) and in the release of the three secrets in Message of Fatima (“Throughout history there have been supernatural apparitions and signs which go to the heart of human events and which, to the surprise of believers and non-believers alike, play their part in the unfolding of history. These manifestations can never contradict the content of faith, and must therefore have their focus in the core of Christ’s proclamation: the Father’s love which leads men and women to conversion and bestows the grace required to abandon oneself to him with filial devotion. This too is the message of Fatima which, with its urgent call to conversion and penance, draws us to the heart of the Gospel.”)
        
       It doesn’t matter how prophetic or awesome a private revelation may be, it is private revelation. It is not Public Revelation and it is not a fulfillment or a mediation of Public Revelation. This is the Church’s infallible teaching. Just as the Church teaches that she is the Bride of Christ, and therefore the Body of Christ, so the Church teaches that Public Revelation ended with the death of the last Apostle, and therefore there will be no new Public Revelation. The Church has divine assurance on these doctrines, and if she doesn’t than she isn’t infallible: And if she isn’t infallible, than her teaching on Revelation is false: Ergo she would be wrong about there being private revelations in the first place, which would mean Fatima would not be a private revelation. In short, you’re wrong about Fatima: If you’re right, you’re wrong and if you’re wrong, you’re wrong: Either way, you’re wrong.
        
       I recommend that you prayfully learn about the theology of revelation. I also recommend that you talk to Kevin Symonds, who knows more about this theology than I do. I further recommend that you talk to the appropriate authority on this matter if you have any more questions or uncertainities: your Spiritual Director or Confessor, your Pastor, your Bishop, and the Holy See, in that order in the chain of command.

       1. Once again, Fatima is not ‘new revelation.’ It is argued as being fulfillment of revelation already given. What I have said does not go against Dei Verbum nor against any of the Church’s infallible teachings on the matter. Public revelation with regards to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ while He was on Earth of course died with the Last Apostle who knew him. There will be nothing new revealed with the exception of fullfullment of things already revealed that will occur in history preceeding Christ’s Glorious Return. Which is what Fatima is, and what Pope John Paul II and even Pope Benedict XVI stressed with regards to the 3rd Secret, that it contains nothing new that hasn’t already been given or hinted at in Revelation. Particularly you should read Pope Benedict XVI’s own words from May 2010 when he visited Fatima.
           
           
          Can you with certainty tell me, when subsequent Popes from John XXIII right down to Pope Benedict XVI have all refused to make a ruling on it, that you have pride enough above them to say that Fatima is not found in revelation in Scripture? And therefore does not fulfill Scripture? That it is not a public fulfillment of Biblical prophecy? Are you then saying that God no longer sends prophets to his people as he has through numerous saints to warn them about certain things and pass on these messages and warnings to His authority on Earth, as has been done throughout History following the death of the last Apostle? And as we are told by Paul to not despise but test all prophecy and hold fast to that which is good?
           
           
          And even if Fatima is merely private revelation, is it then not still prudent to follow through on the Consecration of Russia to avert a coming catastrophe? Would you not at least worry for the potential danger posed to the life of our Holy Father and those around him, and for the sake of Catholicism around the world, that they ought to take the time to perform a consecratory act that would be completely natural and moral and good to do regardless of an apparition or not?
           
           
          I understand your worry that in seeing one say that the Consecration of Russia was never done and the 3rd Secret still hidden with attempts by the Vatican to go to lengths to deceive the faithful, that it shines a bad light on the leaders of the Church. I causes us to mistrust the very people we depend on for truth. Once before I would be saying and have believed the same things you are saying, and would rather dismiss Fatima and forget about it for the sake of maintaining the Church’s reputation. Though given all that has happened in these past decades, the Church has done a fine job of ruining its own reputation anyway…
           
           
          However, you must face up to the facts that the leaders of the Church have not always done what is right, even when motivated by ‘good intentions.’ They are human, and given all they deal with I’m not about to pass any judgment on their souls and motives, I do not know whether I would’ve acted any differently if I were in their shoes, knowing what they know… However, the facts remain what they are: That the Consecration of Russia was never done as commanded by our Lord Himself through His holy mother. And that there is plenty of evidence to show that we were not given the entirety of the 3rd Secret. And since neither of these things have happened, the Church’s decision has potentially led to the unintentional undermining of the faith resulting in great apostasy, has potentially failed to avert great crimes such as the sex abase crisis, and risks even greater misfortune in the future!
           
           
          I pray that you reflect on all of this and look into it more carefully and consider everything I and others have posted here and weigh the consequences of not taking the time to consecrate Russia as the sole object of consecration in union with the world’s bishops under the Pope’s authoritative command, and for not releasing the whole 3rd secret so that the faithful could’ve had a better chance to fight against and protect themselves from the things it warns of… I also recommend taking the time to watch the video romancatholicheroes posted below, as well as other things related to the Fatima conferences. There are a good many knowledgable theologians, and even priests, bishops and cardinals who side with or are at least openly aware of the arguments put forward by the ‘Fatimites’ for good reason. If you truly care for the Church and the Holy Father, I pray that you take the time to consider everything that is stated.
           
          —–
          “what is a private revelation? A private revelation, strictly speaking, is a message to an individual from God or a saint that he is bound to believe. So, if Our Lady appeared to one of you, or your patron saint appeared, and told you what you must do in order to save your soul, or what you must do tomorrow, or even in the next hour, that revelation which you have, which no one else can verify, would be private and no one else would be bound to believe it except yourself.
           
                 But Fatima is not unverifiable, and it’s not a message for one individual. It’s a public message given to the whole Church and verified by a public miracle and public prophecies. And the consequences of ignoring the requests of Our Lady of Fatima are catastrophic. Fatima is a public, prophetic revelation, and as such, once the Church has examined it and found it worthy of belief, Natural Law and Sacred Scripture tell us what we must do. In 1 Thessalonians 5:19-21, St. Paul writes “Do not extinguish the spirit. Do not despise prophecies. But test all things and hold fast that which is good.”
           
                 The Message of Fatima is a public revelation; it’s a prophecy. The Church has tested it and found it to be good and, therefore, we are bound to hold fast to it. To take the attitude that it can be ignored without consequences would be to despise prophecy. Otherwise, we would be extinguishing the spirit, and if we could do that, we could then say “Well, it’s uncomfortable for me to consecrate Russia,” or “It’s uncomfortable for me to pray the Rosary every day,” or “It’s uncomfortable for me to do this or to do that, and so I don’t want to do it.”
           
                 So all I have to do is simply say “I don’t have to believe it”, and then I can peacefully go on my way and say, on Judgment Day, “Well, I didn’t know You wanted me to pray the Rosary. I didn’t know You wanted me to promote the Message of Fatima. I didn’t know You wanted me to consecrate Russia.” The Lord will say “Well, you were told.” “Oh, but I was told it was a private revelation which I didn’t need to obey to save my soul.” “Well you were told by Me in no uncertain terms. I worked a great miracle so that you would know that this message came from Me. You just did not want to hear. You wanted to shut Me off. You obviously were trying to extinguish My Spirit. That excuse will not excuse you. Don’t bother to tell Me that Cardinal Ratzinger and Father Fox said it would. You know better! To ignore it is to extinguish the Holy Spirit, Who spoke to you through this prophecy. You despised prophecy, you’re guilty, and it’s too bad for you.”
           
                 It is what Sister Lucy in her famous interview with Father Fuentes spoke about: To refuse the known truth is a sin against the Holy Spirit. God has given the evidence that the Message of Fatima comes from Him.”
           
          – Fr. Gruner, ‘The Church’s Obligation to Believe and Obey Our Lady of Fatima’-
          ————–
           

22. Finally to those who say, ‘assent of faith is not owed’ and that ‘no one is bad for not believing in it’, it is in a sense right, as believing in it or not following through with any instructions given is always a choice. But in another sense it is also dangerous and risks making a silly decision. One of the more important aspects of Fatima is that it is primarily a warning! Now, say one day America received warnings about an impending terrorist attack, but were not certain of the source, would it then be advisable to dismiss it because they were not bound to believe it, or would it be prudent to take steps against it in the event that the source could be right? This is a choice. If the American authorities ignored it out of suspicion, they would not be bad people, but they would also put the country at risk when if they were able to prevent it; and since it was their job, they could’ve acted prudently given that there was nothing illegal or immoral preventing them from doing so…
    Let us turn for a moment to another message that came from Fatima, this one from the Lord Himself to Sr. Lucy! While praying for the conversions of Russia, Spain, Portugal and the world, our Lord appeared to her and after teaching her some prayers then stated a most terrifying thing:
    ——-
    “Make it known to My ministers that given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, that they will follow him into misfortune. It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary.”
    ——
    What is the example of the King of France? This is a reference to an apparition in 1689, where Christ asked the King of France and his Royal Court to consecrate the nation of France to His Sacred Heart and put its emblem on its flag. The King, Louis XIV, the ‘Sun King’ who was enjoying the height of splendor of the monarchy, did not obey. Neither did his successors obey Christ’s request for a consecration. 100 years later to the very day… The French Revolution came about. The then-current descendent, Louis XVI, was stripped of his power, and then later beheaded, executed as a criminal, and the Catholic Church was also subsequently persecuted.
    When our Lord says to warn His ministers not to follow the King of France’s example, he of course refers to the Pope and Bishops, to whom he gave the (in his words) COMMAND, to perform the consecration of Russia to His mother’s Immaculate Heart. The Pope and Bishops are also given free will to decide whether to obey Him or not. They will not contradict the faith if they choose not to, but they will, and we all will, inherit the consequences of such imprudence when literally nothing with regards to the faith or morals stands in the way of performing such an act. In fact, the vision of the Pope we were then given in 2000 as being the ‘entire’ 3rd secret, now suddenly takes on a frightful prophetic language of something that is yet to be, perhaps 100 years following when the request was first given at Fatima, that perhaps, like France, indicates that such a countdown exists to a future only Heaven has seen.
    What this means is that our Pope and our bishops and religious, perhaps even Pope Benedict XVI’s successor, have a dangerous fate awaiting them. Also fated for the entire Church because we have refused to prudently heed the warnings of Fatima, which has taken pains to be an apparition with a far more public showing than ever witnessed in history! And that too, with instructions and a secret confided to the Church to make public under its authority so that we may all take that message seriously! But we have been denied it… The splendor the Church believed it had favored following its courageous actions in WWII has gone very low, and the same spirit of the French Revolution with its immorality, its illicit worship of ‘Enlightenment and Reason’ and anti-clericalism, and anti-Catholicism is growing around the world. In light of all this, all Catholics have a right to petition the Pope and the Church to take measures to protect itself from a coming tide of violence and persecution… And a Consecration of Russia alone to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, by the Pope in union with the world’s bishops, is what many believe to be a weapon against this potent danger. If our Lord has chosen Russia to be that weapon, then who are we to question His decision or what His ways are?
    Shall we continue to then dismiss the warnings of Fatima? Or is it not best to simply be prudent and perform the request that requires the Church to engage in an entirely natural course of simple action that is not alien to its mission? One has only to read the Bible to see where all specific acts of consecration, even in figures like Jacob, Saul and David, led to great growth and victory! So, let us then be reasonable and simply consecrate Russia by itself to Mary’s Immaculate Heart, with the Pope and bishops together as a force of solidarity. We do not need to question why God wants it this way or think we know geopolitical strategy better than God, or think we can change the wordings of the request to vaguely reflect what God wants (something that would ironically plague the Novus Ordo Mass and the Church documents of Vatican II). It would be like Elijah asking God why He was bothering to pour water over the altar if he wanted to set it on fire to show off to the prophets of Baal? It would make no sense to drench the altar with water… it completely contradicts the scientific know-how of what it takes to get a good fire started! But of course, this is rather the point… Who are we then, to impose our logical rules of apparitions from directories and legalistic documents in the face of a request so simple and prudent, something the Church ought to be doing for every country anyways, apparition or no apparition? Does not any of this strike anyone as being so odd, that the only reason for why such simplicity has been mired in confusion, could only be the work of something diabolical trying its hardest to prevent it?
    Let us then act prudently and sensibly! Let us get the bishops around the world to obey the Pope, and as a single force, take the prudent steps to avoid great future dangers to obey God, and to plainly and properly consecrate Russia in precise and clear language to Mary’s Immaculate Heart! A lot is at stake! Perhaps even our lives! And more importantly the salvation of many souls

23. Also for Pope Benedict XVI’s sake I should also add here what he himself said as lately as May 11, 2010, where he again reverses course and states the following about the 3rd Secret and the Fatima prophecies. Pay careful attention to his words and phrases that the Pope had prepared in advance for the interview:
    ———
    Lombardi: “Holiness, what significance do the apparitions of FAtima hve for us today? And when you presented the test of the Third Secret, in the Vatican Press Office, in June 2000, it was asked of you whether the Message could also be extended, beyond the attack on John Paul II, also to other sufferings of the Pope. Is it possible, according to you, to frame also in that vision the sufferings of the Church today for the sins of the sexual abuse of minors?”
     
    Pope Benedict: “Beyond the great vision of the suffering of the Pope, which we can in substance refer to John Paul II, are indicated future realities of the Church which are little by little developing and revealing themselves. Thus, it is true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, it is spoken, it is seen, the necesity of a passion of the Church that naturally is reflected in the person of the Pope; but the Pope is in the Church, and therefore the sufferings of the Church are what is announced… As for the novelty that we can discover today in this message, it is that attacks on the Pope an the Church do not come only from outside, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from sins that exist in the Church. This has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church does not come from enemies outside, but arises from sin in the Church.”
    ————-
     
    Pope Benedict refers to future realities as well  as present developments long after the assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II. He expanded it to include the sex abuse crisis. And speaks of an internal enemy within the Church. Not an external one as referred to the Soviet plot against John Paul II or symbolized in the vision. Pope Benedict XVI has thus completely contradicted the so called official interpretation of the vision given by the Vatican Secretary of State in 2000, that he says only refers to it ‘in substance’ hence not literally. And Benedict mentions things spoken about that are not in the vision, but something spoken ‘beyond the moment.’ Hence explosively and intentionally revealing, as the Italian media had picked up, that there is more than what we were given in 2000.
     
    One vaticanist Paolo Rodari commented on the Pope’s words and with reference to the new book ‘The 4th Secret of Fatima’ by Antonio Socci: “It is true that the Pope did not speak of a fourth secret explicitly. But to read the response he gave today to the journalists, one cannot but think of Socci, who has always linked the contents of a hypothetical fourth secret to the corruption of the Church and to the sin which is born within the Church and is presently operative. Reading what the Pope said today, it seems that for him Fatima is not reducible only to the past and thus only to the text of 2000.”
     
    Then on May 13th, during his homily, Pope Benedict XVI again declared, “One would be deceiving himself who thinks that the prophetic mission of Fatima is concluded.” These are particularly strong words. For one, the Pope doesn’t say ‘we’ as in something generally, but ‘he’… and that he who thinks Fatima is over is not ‘mistaken’ s in something general, but engaged in ‘self-deception.’ It is remarkable to note that Pope Benedict XVI has also stated these things around the time not only of Socci’s book, but also 2 other books by the then-Vatican Secretary of State, Cardinal Bertone who continues to promote the declaration announced in 2000 that Fatima concerns the past and the assassination attempt on John Paul II and thus is concluded.
     
    It seems that Pope Benedict XVI is purposely choosing to reopen the case on Fatima and the 3rd secret that perhaps as a cardinal he was forced to comply with a strategy to hide it. As Socci stated the Pope had, “reopened the Fatima file in such a precise and obvious way that everyone who, in these past years, rushed to give his praise to the Curial version is now caught in a panic when confronted with the Pope’s words…”
     
    One Vitorio Messori, who had defended the old interpretation of 2000 lamented, “Now, in the vast party of the ‘Fatimites’ there will be excitement, to demonstrate that Pope Benedict XVI has betrayed himself…” But now he too has done an about face to support the Pope’s recent words declaring in a broadcast that Pope Benedict does not see the fulfillment of the Third Secret in the assassination attempt of 1981 and does not consider it part of the past, but sees it projected into the future, because now it seems that the Pope is referring to other things, like the sex abuse scandal, which are not given to us in the vision that we were told composed the ‘entirety’ of the 3rd Secret.
     
    Socci defends the Pope’s decision to do this now as that the Pope, “wants us to understand… that we must never be afraid of the truth, even when it is embarrassing or painful. Because we do not serve God with lies. When we lie with pretense that we are doing it for God, we are actually doing it for ourselves. God does not need our lies to defend and build His Church. It is better to do a mea culpa, because God is stronger and bigger than any of our sins. Obviously, this behavior is not understood in the Curia, not even by the ‘Ratzinger fans.’
     
    This is another recent revelation that must be considered here if we are going to judge the situation based on things Pope Benedict XVI has stated, and it seems that he has now purposely fired up the situation. There is definitely something that went on all those years ago, and it might be as we were warned to pray for the Holy Father, because he is surrounded by enemies on all sides and is in a sense truly alone…

24. Interesting article on this subject:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/02/25/the-pharisees-of-the-vatican/

Comments are closed.