Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

That would be your opinion, but it is not the opinion of several priests and theologians who have studied these messages thoroughly and concluded they are free of doctrinal error. But you are entitled to your opinion as well, but I doubt that you have spent the time reviewing them as others I have mentioned.

 

No not specifically but the post mentioned THE WARNING & your response of "the alleged revelation must be rejected," encompassed the entirety of it. The Warning should not be included in any "rejection." In part or otherwise by anyone. This world needs this direct intervention of God ASAP. "To change the conscience of the world." But not in my/our time. Only His!! Peace!

 

It is my opinion based upon a clear inconsistency in the text you have presented as credible.

Who endorsed these claims? I was unable to locate this information on Schefers' web site.

 

With all due respect sir, I think you are reading too deeply into my post.

 

With all do respect what does it mean if you post we "must reject the alleged revelation," mean then? The "Warning" is in that "alleged revelation." Thanks.

 

JohnT, I was speaking about that particular revelation--not Garabandal. End of story.

 

Ok. But in that particular "revelation," contained the Warning. And the Divine will of God which as the Lords Prayer states "Thy Kingdom come thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven." That's the end game. " Respectfully, that's the "end of story," and can't be "rejected." Sorry, but a blanket statement of "Rejection," of that can't be IMHO. It's the blanket statement I found and find confusing. I always like to crystallize and clarify "confusion." Peace!

 

However the description became available it is accepted that several (be they Popes, clerics, or seculars) have read it since it has been described by such in the simplest of those comparisons (without giving its own authentic verbiage due to being sworn to secrecy) to the last message of Akita and with the language of the effects of natural disasters (beyond that which dealt with effects within the Church). The overall background for everything being apostasy.

 

We don't know if Garabandal is true, so we certainly can't say that "the Warning" will happen. "The Warning" is alleged to be a global, instantaneous supernatural event wherein everyone at the same time sees their consciences. Yet there is no mention of such an event anywhere in Sacred Scripture let alone the writings of the Church Fathers. I find that odd. Christ mentioned many of the signs that will occur during the end times but He never mentioned or even alluded to "the Warning."

 

P.S.

“The third message given on Oct. 13, 1973 by the Virgin Mary in Akita … spoke of the ‘demon’ entering the Church,” he said. “[It spoke of] ‘cardinal against cardinal and bishop against bishop.’ Even worse, the Virgin warned of a ‘fire falling from heaven’ [and] a ‘chastisement’ greater than the ‘deluge.’ She warned that the living would envy the dead.”


Michael Brown, a noted Catholic researcher and author, said the Message of Akita “bears similarities, sometimes striking ones” to the apocalyptic version of the third secret held by Catholic traditionalists.

“Several years ago, I asked the bishop of the Akita area about the [prophesies], and he sent me a fax saying that the phenomenon of the tears, which came from a statue, had his tentative approval,” Brown told WorldNetDaily yesterday. However, he added, there “is no final approval, and no judgment, on the actual message.”

In another discussion of the similarities between the secrets of Fatima and the Message of Akita,

Inside The Vatican Magazine published an interview in November 1998 with Howard Dee, former ambassador to the Vatican from the Philippines.

In the article, Dee said, “Bishop Ito, Ordinary of Akita who approved the apparitions, wrote to me after he briefed the Holy Father about the Akita Events and presented his pastoral to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger for approval.

“Bishop Ito 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,” Dee told the magazine. “Bishop Ito said: ‘The Father wants to purify mankind before it enters into the third millennium.'”

Tsakanikas, who left the Catholic Press Association in April, said at one time that he and a colleague “wrote an article about connection between Fatima, Amsterdam and Akita that a certain person close to the pope wanted to see published.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2000/07/2042/#OoEyrmSc4uj3z50P.99

 

I have known Michael Brown for 19 years and I never knew that he received that fax from Bishop Ito. You just made my day, earthtoangels, THANK YOU!!!

 

While it's true that Garabandal has not been approved by the church (nor condemned) it knows the date of the Great Miracle and will authenticate it when it happens. They are waiting for the date to come before approving it. It's only natural and logical that when the Third Secret of Fatima was not revealed in 1960 as the Blessed Virgin Mary instructed, she came at Garabandal the very next year to warn the world again & then one final time at Akita-fully approved by the church-the chastisement-which is the last of the three events and the ONE conditional event phrophesized at Garabandal should the world not change AFTER the Miracle. (When after only God knows) Re belief in Garabandal after all the aforementioned:"for those who believe no explanation is necessary. For those that don't no explanation will suffice." Peace!

 

A few others:

I pronounced a great day… wherein the terrible Judge should reveal all men’s consciences and try every man of each kind of religion. This is the day of change, this is the Great Day which I threatened, comfortable to the well-being, and terrible to all heretics. —St. Edmund Campion, Cobett’s Complete Collection of State Trials…, Vol. I, p. 1063.

Blessed Anna Maria Taigi (1769-1837), known for her astoundingly accurate visions, also spoke of such an event.

She indicated that this illumination of conscience would result in the saving of many souls because many would repent as a result of this”warning”… this miracle of “self-illumination.” —Fr. Joseph Iannuzzi in Antichrist and the End Times, P. 36

And more recently, mystic Maria Esperanza (1928-2004) said,

The consciences of this beloved people must be violently shaken so that they may “put their house in order”… A great moment is approaching, a great day of light… it is the hour of decision for mankind. —Ibid, P. 37 (Volumne 15-n.2, Featured Article from www.sign.org)

https://www.markmallett.com/blog/eye-of-the-storm/

A seer named Elizabeth Canori-Mora had a vision in 1825 in which "a great light appeared upon the earth which was the 'sign of the reconciliation' of God with man." In 1836 Blessed Anna Maria Taigi had a similar vision in which she foresaw that "a great purification will come upon the world preceded by an 'illumination of conscience' in which everyone will see themselves as God sees them."

As pointed out by author Thomas Petrisko, the prophecy has been claimed by many. "I will give them a special light," seers in Heede, Germany, quoted the Lord as saying. "For some this light will be a blessing; for others, darkness. The light will come like the star that showed the way to wise men. Mankind will experience My love and My power."

These prophecies may tie in with signs seen by saints and popes. Saint Faustina envisioned a great luminous cross in the sky, and in the 19th century Pius IX saw something similar. "There will be a great prodigy which will fill the world with awe," he said.

http://www.spiritdaily.net/illumination.htm
​

 

Well, as the saying goes: even a blind pig can find an acorn once in a while!!

 

Not sure if you mean me as the blind pig or you....

 

There is no explicit passage in Scripture about the warning, yet there is and it is found in the 'sealed book', the Book of Revelation. Revelation Chapter 14 6-7 The Three Angels Then I saw another angel flying high overhead, with everlasting good news to announce to those who dwell on earth, to every nation, tribe, tongue, and people. He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give Him glory, for His time has come to sit in judgment. Worship Him who made heaven and earth and sea and springs of water." This is the warning! This is the time of judgment to every nation, tribe, tongue and people. It is not the end of the world. It will usher in the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. This is what Sister Lucia meant when she said that the events of Fatima are found in the book of revelation. It is all happening just as she told us and as she told us at Garabandal and dare I say to this crowd, yes even at Medjugorje.

 

My question will not be helpful.


The “sheet of paper” controversy Another indication of the existence of two texts is a key phrase in Sister Lucia’s declaration, already quoted in full above: “They tell me either to write it in the notebooks… or if I wish, to write it on a sheet of paper…”31 This statement coincides with the aforementioned statement by Cardinal Ottaviani: “She wrote on a sheet of paper [foglio in Italian] what Our Lady told her to tell the Holy Father.”32 Since the text of the vision as photo-reproduced by the Vatican in TMF spans four pages, not a single page, it was reasonable to conclude, as Socci does, that there is a missing text contained on “a sheet” of paper comprising one page. Borelli, however, thinks he has the answer: Since, during the famous telecast of May 31, 200733 on the Italian talk show Porta a Porta, Bertone showed that the vision is written on a single folio (again, foglio in Italian) of ruled paper, folded in half to make four pages containing 62 lines of text, what we have is “a single sheet in four pages, and the contradiction which alarms Socci is resolved.”34 But Borelli has failed to examine the evidence with the thoroughness required of someone who proposes to “clarify” the issues in this matter. First of all, we now have the conclusive admission of Cardinal Bertone, during the same telecast on which Borelli relies, that Cardinal Ottaviani, who has read the Third Secret, also testified that the “sheet of paper” on which Lucia wrote the Secret contained only 25 lines, not the 62 lines of the four-page vision. When confronted with Ottaviani’s testimony on camera, Bertone stated: “To me, it was a little amazing that Cardinal Ottaviani had said categorically a sheet of 25 lines…”35 Categorically! Bertone not only does not deny the “Fatimist” documentation of this decisive testimony, he affirms that Ottaviani gave it categorically. Granted, following a commercial break during the telecast Bertone attempted what I show in The Secret Still Hidden to be a patently ridiculous “explanation” of Ottaviani’s “categorical” testimony: that Ottaviani had somehow conflated two pages of the four-page text of the vision into a one-page 25-line text, while overlooking the other two pages and 37 lines. But, as I noted in my book, no two pages of the vision add up to 25 lines, but rather only 32 or 30 lines. Thus, Bertone’s explanation was clearly an on-the-spot contrivance he had to know was unbelievable.36 Also, it was quite telling that during the telecast Bertone offered the following comment. I urge the reader to study and ponder these words very carefully:t may be that he [Ottaviani] had given a rather hasty summary [of the Secret], that he was mistaken.37 I don’t believe that this element is so convincing as to say that there exists a sheet of paper (foglio) of 25 lines respecting the other of around 60 [sic] lines. Maybe Ottaviani gave a hasty summary of the Secret’s contents? Maybe he was mistaken? Bertone doesn’t believe Cardinal Ottaviani’s testimony is an “element” that is “so convincing”? As I ask in The Secret Still Hidden: “Are these the words of a man who is quite certain Ottaviani’s ‘categorical’ statement had to be wrong? Or, rather, are they the words of a man who has adopted the rhetorical posture of appearing to be perplexed by something he knows or has reason to suspect is true?” As I further observed in that passage of my book, Bertone had the resources to demolish Ottaviani’s “categorical” statement about the text of 25 lines if it were really untrue, and yet by the time of the telecast he was completely unprepared to do so. As I wrote: Consider that, as Vatican Secretary of State, Bertone had ready access to witnesses or documentation that could have refuted Ottaviani’s statement conclusively, if such witnesses or documents existed. For example, at any time between 2000 and 2007 Bertone could have inquired of any of the still-living cardinals who attended the Third Secret plenaria [on March 7, 1967] presided over by Ottaviani; or, if not the cardinals, then any still-living members of their staffs. It would have been a simple matter to ask these witnesses if they had ever seen in Ottaviani’s hands or heard him describe a document of 25 lines pertaining to the Secret, or if they had seen such a document themselves. Bertone could also have consulted the minutes of the plenaria and the personal papers of Ottaviani himself. Or he could have made inquiry of any number of other witnesses in the Vatican, from the Pope on down, as to whether they or anyone else had ever seen or heard of the text whose existence Ottaviani had “categorically” affirmed. Yet Bertone had appeared on national television totally unprepared to refute Ottaviani’s “categorical” statement undermining the official account. Why? Because there is no refutation. Cardinal Ottaviani was telling the truth.http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/ferraraexpose.pdf

 

Congratulations, Mac, on getting back to the topic of the thread which has nothing to do with Garabandal or the Warning. I need to study this item from Christopher Ferrara which addresses objections made by the Socci critic, Antonio A. Borelli. Kevin had mentioned Dr Borelli earlier but I have not been able to find any English translation of his critique on the internet.

 

Cardinal Bertone quotes Siter Lucia after the Vatican publication of the secret:

To whoever imagines that some part of the secret has been hidden, she replied: "everything has been published; no secret remains." To those who speak and write of new revelations, she said: "There is no truth in this. If I had received new revelations, I would have told no one, but I would have communicated them directly to the Holy Father."​

We know from the newly published book from Sister Lucia's Cumbria nuns that Our Lady had indeed given Sister Lucia 'an understanding' of the third secret. As we see from the above quote, Sister Lucia did not view this 'understanding' as a new revelation. And yet it is precisely this 'understanding', in written form, that most of the discussion and disagreement is about. Sister Lucia confirms above that if she ever did write it down, it would have been sent to the Pope, not to the Vatican.

 

Regarding the envelopes....


20. Bertone has failed and refused to produce the reopened and resealed Capovilla envelope, even though he has finally admitted that it exists.

21. Yet Bertone, under mounting public pressure, finally revealed on the television show Porta a Porta that there are actually two identical sealed envelopes of Lucia’s, bearing the “express order of Our Lady” that the contents were not to be revealed until 1960, even though he had been representing for seven years that there is only one envelope, while falsely claiming that Lucia “confessed” she had never received any order from the Virgin linking the Secret to 1960 and forbidding its disclosure until then.

22. Bertone also revealed on Porta a Porta a third envelope of Lucia’s, unsealed and addressed to Bishop da Silva, which, together with the Bishop’s outer envelope, would make a total of four envelopes we are supposed to believe were all created for only one text of the Secret.

23. Yet, when he held up Bishop da Silva’s outer envelope to a bright light, auxiliary Bishop Venâncio saw only one envelope inside, and took exact measurements of both the envelope and the single sheet of paper within it, which contained 20-25 lines of text, as Cardinal Ottaviani testified.

24. The measurements of the envelope and the sheet of paper taken by Bishop Venâncio are entirely different from the measurements of the envelope and the sheet of paper revealed by Bertone on Porta a Porta.

25. Bertone himself revealed, only weeks before his appearance on Porta a Porta, in his book Last Visionary of Fatima, that in April 2000 Sister Lucia “authenticated” sheets (fogli) of paper pertaining to the Secret, even though on Porta a Porta Bertone revealed only one sheet, that containing the text of the vision.

26. In Last Visionary Bertone also revealed that there was also an outer envelope, not Lucia’s, bearing the note “Third Part of the Secret,” which likewise has never been shown to the public. 27. Confronted with mounting evidence of a cover-up, Bertone adopted the line of referring repeatedly to an “authentic” text of the Secret, an “authentic” envelope, and the “only folio that exists in the Holy Office archives,” when he knows full well that there was a text and envelope in the papal apartment, thus suggesting (as Socci notes) that he deems a second text of the Secret “inauthentic.”http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/ferraraexpose.pdf