The Third Secret of Fatima and Corruption in the Church.

Discussion in 'Church Critique' started by padraig, Sep 15, 2018.

  1. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    The Oath Against Modernism: Template for Action


    We’re wearing out Ezekiel’s Trumpet.

    Son of man, speak to your people and tell them: ‘Suppose I bring the sword against a land, and the people of that land choose a man from among them, appointing him as their watchman, and he sees the sword coming against that land and blows his trumpet to warn the people. Then if anyone hears the sound of the trumpet but fails to heed the warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head…

    People who write about the crisis in the Church are saying the same thing; a lot of people are getting it at last. What we really need now is a plan of action.

    In the last few days and weeks we have started to see an authentically Catholic reaction from a small number of bishops. Today we hear that a bishop in Kansas has ordered all parishes to restore the prayer to St. Michael, that renowned instrument against the demonic, at the end of every Mass.

    This is some pretty exciting news for bishops. But it still leaves open the question of what laypeople themselves can do. Now that the Catholic remnant is alerted to the real nature of the danger, it is time we come up with some kind of plan.

    Things appear to have turned a corner in the general understanding of the scale and nature of the crisis, that more and more people are coming to see didn’t start with this pope. It’s arguable that the surge in public distrust of Pope Bergoglio and his agenda is late and based on the wrong priorities. The fury against him from Catholics comes from the same reason for the turn against him in the mainstream media. His collusion with the homosexual abuse scandals that is now being shown to go back to his days in Argentina are not, in reality, as serious as his relentless attacks on the Catholic Faith itself.

    But however it came about, and however late it might be, the sea-change against this pontificate has driven many to re-examine the Traditionalist argument – that Bergoglio is a product of the crisis, not its cause. It is starting, at last, to be widely acknowledged that this pontificate is nothing more than the inevitable result of the trajectory the Church has been on since 1965. Jorge Bergoglio, and the perversion of the priesthood he represents, is a product of post-conciliar compromises, the friendly accommodation and absorption of secularism, the accommodation with the World and the Flesh that became the institutional priority after Vatican II and has led to the devil getting a now-incontestable grip on the Church. In short, people are coming to understand that Jorge Bergoglio and his friends, are the symptom of the acute stage of the progressive disease, not the disease itself.

    But now that we are finally past the stage of having to convince people that the Traditionalist point of view was the correct one, a great many are asking, “What next?” A lot of the discussion has centered on highly technical theological and canonical issues; whether it is possible to depose a pope, or if a pope can depose himself, criteria for determining precisely what constitutes “formal” heresy… and on and on. As a friend put it a few days ago, “We’ve all had enough of Bellarmine this, Suarez that and Cajetan the other thing…” The simple fact is that to nearly everyone these questions are mostly academic. Interesting as far as they go, but for most of us mainly they are the internet equivalent of arguments over politics in the pub.

    The issuing of a formal correction or the convening of an ecumenical council, imperfect or otherwise, is beyond most of our powers. As ordinary people, we have to bring ourselves down to earth. I’m not a bishop or cardinal, and you probably aren’t either. So, what is genuinely within the purview of the laity to do, concretely? We’ve probably all had enough of the facile reminder, “Just pray the Rosary.” Since many, many people who squeeze their daily beads are in the same state of confusion as those who don’t, maybe we can try getting more specific.

    Fortunately, we’ve got a name for the disease, and a holy pope who provided the cure. It is at last being widely acknowledged that the Asteroid we’ve all been watching is Modernism, the same “synthesis of all heresies” that Pius X tried to stop at the opening of the 20th century. A Rome conference sponsored in June this year by the formerly stalwart “conservative” LifeSiteNews focused on the triumphant resurgence of Modernism since Vatican II, identifying it as the source of the crisis; more or less the core of the Traditionalist position.

    Reporting on the conference, Dianne Montagna wrote:

    “Imagine that the trials of the current pontificate, the machinations of the German bishops, and Fr. James Martin’s controversial statements on homosexuality were to end tomorrow. Perhaps for a time some would feel that Mordor had been destroyed and sunshine and freedom were restored to the Shire, but the current crisis in the Church would not be over. Why? Because controversial passages in Amoris Laetitia, the German Bishops’ intercommunion proposal, and Fr. James Martin’s watering down of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality are only symptoms of a deeper problem. Health will not be restored to Christ’s Mystical Body until these deeper problems are identified, addressed and healed.”

    Professor Roberto de Mattei and likeminded colleagues at that conference identified the source of the crisis as a resurgence of Modernism. With some slight modifications, it is in essence the same theological disease that Pius X fought so ferociously. Most Traditionalists understand this, but since this pontificate – and especially in the last three months – many who have never called themselves that are coming to the same realisation.

    Diane Montanga again:

    “According to the organizers of the June symposium, the rejection of the errors that have penetrated the Mystical Body of Christ, and the return, with God’s help, to complete Catholic truth believed and lived, are the necessary conditions for the Church’s renewal.”

    This "Paranoid Extremist" Was Right and Has Now Been Vindicated Completely
    St. Pius X, Pray For Us


    AED likes this.
  2. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    As de Mattei explained, Modernism was defined by Pope St. Pius X to cover a set of “theological, philosophical, and exegetical errors” dating back into the 19th century. These he named and condemned in the encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis and the decree Lamentabili sane. The saintly pope then implemented certain disciplinary measures intended to root out what was at that time mainly a trend among academic priests. Although these measures appeared to be effective at first, Modernism re-emerged in the ‘30s and began its work infiltrating every institution of the Catholic world. And it’s great triumph was Vatican II.

    De Mattei describes it as a “synthesis of ancient errors such as Gnosticism, Pelagianism and Arianism.” The new version, Neo-modernism, in its emphasis on changing doctrine indirectly by changing practice, “has become a philosophy of life and pastoral action, even before being a doctrinal school.”

    Traditionalists like Professor de Mattei have known for a long time that this anti-Catholic ideology has become completely accepted – mainly through deliberate misrepresentation of the Faith – throughout the length and breadth of the Church, among clergy and laity, like a tasteless, odorless but deadly systemic poison introduced into a water supply.

    So, back to the question of what to do about it, as laymen with little power to change bishops or depose popes, perhaps we could usefully ask what the same saintly pope recommended as a remedy. Rather than dive into the complexities of theology, it might be more useful to examine another document from Pius X, a motu proprio issued in September 1910 called Sacrorum antistitum. This document is most famous for including the Oath Against Modernism, required of “all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries” of the Catholic Church until it was rescinded on 17 July 1967 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, with the approval of Pope Paul VI.

    At the suggestion of a priest I know who has spent his priestly life combating Modernism, we can perhaps examine the Oath not with a mind to taking it formally ourselves, but to create a programme of action. As a template for re-examining the truths of the Catholic Faith that the Neo-Modernists want to have disappear. I would suggest that a first step in any battle plan must be accurate intelligence. We have to know very precisely what our enemies are doing.

    Simply, if the Oath was conceived as the main public instrument of combating this terrible illness, this deformation of Catholicism, it is obviously the place to start, to point the way to a cure. It is merely a distillation of Pope Pius X’s warning; Modernism subverts Catholicism by stealth, by modifying definitions of terms, by undermining the very notion of truth, but all the while retaining the terms themselves; by “reformulations” of doctrines and “updating of language.” Using the Oath as a guide, applying it clause by clause to what is being done by the Bergoglians now, it becomes a simple matter to see through their attempts at obfuscation.

    For instance, one of the most insistent calls by the Bergoglian revolutionaries at both Synods on the Family was for a “reformulation” of the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. We were told ad nauseam that the “doctrine isn’t being changed” but that there was a need to “reexamine the language” used to convey it.

    These are classic Modernist tropes, and they are refuted and warned against explicitly in the very opening passages of the Oath.

    I . . . firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

    As we see here, in its opening sentence, the rug is pulled out from under the revolutionaries currently ruling the Vatican. Since the sense, the nature, of an idea is conveyed by language, and theological formulations are by necessity extremely precise, and since these formulations convey truths – realities established more firmly than the laws of mathematics or physics – the attempt to “merely change the language” while claiming to retain the meaning is revealed for the poisoned snake oil that it is.

    Do we want to know in detailed and precise language what is wrong with the New Paradigm being forced onto the Church right now by the Bergoglians? Do we want to understand what is really going on, in language and terms we non-theologians and non-scholars can understand? Do we want to understand precisely how these very bad men are manipulating and distorting the Faith?

    A careful re-reading of the Oath is very revealing. St. Pius X immediately goes on to list the truths that not only must be absolutely held by all Catholics, but must be expressed and believed precisely in the same language and terminology as they always have, specifically with a mind to refute those commonly held “errors of this day”:

    And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:19), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.

    Contrast this with Bergoglio’s repeated attacks on the very notion that the Faith can be known with certainty, or even on the desire for certainty: “If one has the answers to all the questions - that is the proof that God is not with him. It means that he is a false prophet using religion for himself. The great leaders of the people of God, like Moses, have always left room for doubt. You must leave room for the Lord, not for our certainties; we must be humble.”


    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2020
    DeGaulle and AED like this.
  3. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Read the rest of the Oath and see how many of the Bergoglians’ standard tropes it refutes directly.

    Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

    Bergoglio has joined with thousands of other Neo-Modernist priests in outright denying the supernatural miracles of Christ. He produced a video in May, 2013, only a few weeks after his election, in which he denied the miraculous nature of the multiplication of the loaves and fishes. “Regarding the loaves and fishes, I would like to add a new perspective. They didn’t multiply, no, that’s not true. The loaves simply didn’t come to an end. Just like the flour and the oil of the widow that didn’t run out. When multiplication is spoken of, it might be confused with magic, no. No, no, the grandeur of God is so great, and the love he puts in our hearts, that if we wish, that which we have will not run out.” This has been a repeated theme. In another instance, he said that “God is not a magician who does things with a magic wand.”

    Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

    Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical’ misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously.

    In July 2016, Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, identified by the pope as the most authoritative interpreter of Amoris Laetitia, said that document’s volte face on giving Holy Communion to unrepentant adulterers is an “evolution” of doctrine, based on the needs of the times. “In this sphere of human realities, the Holy Father has fundamentally renewed the discourse of the Church – certainly along the lines of Evangelii gaudium, but also of Gaudium et spes, which presents doctrinal principles and reflections on human beings today that are in a continuous evolution. There is a profound openness to accept reality.”

    Once the principles of Modernism have been understood – which they can be merely by a careful examination of the Oath – all the machinations of the Bergoglians become clear, as if one has shone a searchlight on a nest of cockroaches. Use the Oath to educate yourself. I suggest this as step one in a plan for the laity.

    But since the principles of Modernism have been adopted by our entire civilisation, by interiorising the Oath, one can in a sense inoculate oneself against the aerosolized version of the disease. Read the rest and you will recognise many of the ideas that modern secularism takes for granted about religion; it is a figment of “blind sentiment”; its ideas are “philosophical figments,” the product of mere “human conscience”; religious ideas are never static, but can and must change constantly to keep up with human evolution; that things held as true by Catholics are contradicted in history, that faith and objective reality observed by historians and scientists are in opposition; that an educated Catholic must ignore what he knows in favour of his Faith:

    I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

    Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our creator and lord.

    Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas.

    I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion.

    I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality - that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful.

    Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

    Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

    Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles.

    I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles.

    The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

    I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

    (some of the emphases are mine - SgC)

    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2020
    DeGaulle and AED like this.
  4. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Here is an excerpt from a new letter written by Pope Benedict XVI on the occasion of Pope John Paul II's Birth Centenary:

    "When Cardinal Wojtyła was elected Successor of St. Peter on 16 October 1978, the Church was in a dramatic situation. The deliberations of the Council had been presented to the public as a dispute over the Faith itself, which seemed to deprive the Council of its infallible and unwavering sureness. A Bavarian parish priest, for example, commented on the situation by saying, “In the end, we fell into the wrong faith.” This feeling that nothing was no longer certain, that everything was questioned, was kindled even more by the method of implementation of liturgical reform. In the end, it almost seemed that the liturgy could be created of itself. Paul VI brought the Council to an end with energy and determination, but after its conclusion, he faced ever more pressing problems that ultimately questioned the existence of the Church Herself."

    Byron and AED like this.
  5. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    I just became aware of an epilogue to 'The Secret Still Hidden' by Christopher Ferrara.

    In it, on page 53, there is a quote from Antonio Socci's searing commentary (published on May 13 2010 in Il Libero) on Pope Benedict XVI's obvious demolition of Bertone’s/Sodano’s entire position on the Third Secret.
    (Pope Benedict himself willingly reopened the topic during his pilgrimage to Fatima in May 2010).

    It is now a matter of black and white, Socci wrote, that “The ‘fourth secret’ (that is, a part of the Third Secret which has not been published yet) exists, and the words of the Pope on the pedophilia scandal are the proof.” The Pope, he continued, is “performing a great truth-telling work, even if this means contradicting the interpretation given by the Vatican Secretaries of State.”

    ....]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.’

    Beth B, Mary's child and DeGaulle like this.
  6. DeGaulle

    DeGaulle Powers

    "...that a group of men by their own labour, skill and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and His Apostles".

    This reminds me of what a cardinal said to Napolean to the effect that The Church must be true because it could not have oterwise survived a fortnight given the knaves and fools that had administered Her.

    In our present situation, we now clearly see the qualities of most of our prelates. These people couldn't keep a corner-shop going.
    Beth B, Mary's child, Tanker and 4 others like this.
  7. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    We already know the contents of the secret.
    We are living in the times.
    Last edited: May 17, 2020
    Beth B and Mary's child like this.
  8. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    Interesting to note a significant timeline in the Fatima story --

    On the outside of the envelope of the 3rd secret Sister Lucia wrote “By the express order of Our Lady, this envelope can be opened in 1960 by the Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria”.


    Why explicitly 1960?

    On January 25, 1959, in the Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, Pope John XXIII announced his intention to convoke an ecumenical council. It was at the closing ceremony for the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

    I think that part 3b of the secret (part 3a being the vision), is a written text and therefore it would make sense that it mentions a council (and perhaps bad fruits of a council).

    I cannot logically think of any other reason why 1960 was the given date by our Lady.

    It could also explain why Pope John XXIII did not release the secret.

    The timings involved here cannot be mere coincidence.
  9. HeavenlyHosts

    HeavenlyHosts Powers

    Thank you for this post! I noted with interest that it says CAN be opened in 1960, not must.
    It also does not mention that it must be published.
  10. garabandal

    garabandal Powers

    I found a better translation


    This is an envelope with the following words written in Portuguese:

    Por ordem expressa de Nossa
    Senhora êste envelope só pode ser
    aberto em 1960 por sua Ema. o
    Senhor Cardeal Patriarca de Lisboa
    ou por sua Excia Rvma o Senhor
    Bispo de Leiria

    This text translates to English literally as follow:

    By the express order of Our
    Lady this envelope can only be
    opened in 1960 by His Eminence the
    Lord Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon
    or by His Reverend Excellence the Lord
    Bishop of Leiria
    Beth B, Byron, Sam and 3 others like this.
  11. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    When Sr Lucia was asked why 1960, she replied, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so" and "it (the Third Secret) will be clearer then".

    There are important facts about this letter containing the second part of the Third Secret (the words of Our Lady) which definitely indicate that it was meant to be made known or released to all. It wasn't meant only for the Bishop or even the Pope.

    Firstly, as we can see, the instruction on the envelope, in Sr Lucia's handwriting, states that it is to be opened by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria, in 1960. The Pope is not mentioned.

    Then let's look at these excerpts from: Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite. “The Whole Truth about Fatima - Vol III.

    (pg 86):
    “Canon Galamba and Bishop da Silva (who at this time was at Formiguera, his country home near Braga) came as usual to Valença do Minho to meet Sister Lucy there. This time Sister Lucy came from nearby Tuy, passed Spanish customs, crossed the great international bridge spanning the Minho, then Portuguese customs, and she went to Asilo Fonseca, a young women’s college run by the Franciscans. There the meeting was scheduled.

    In the parlour of the college there was a large sofa with an armchair on either side. Two separate conversations took place that day: at one end of the sofa sat Bishop da Silva speaking with the Mother Superior, while at the other end Canon Galamba questioned Lucy. Suddenly the Canon asked her: “Why don’t you reveal the third part of the Secret of Our Lady? Could you perhaps tell it to us now?” Then Lucy gestured with her head to Bishop da Silva: “Now, if His Grace wants, I can tell it to you.” The conversation between the Mother Superior and the bishop was over now and everybody was standing. Canon Galamba said to the bishop: “Your Grace! Sister Lucy says that if you want, she can now reveal the third part of the Secret.” Immediately, the bishop answered: “I do not want to do anything of the kind! I don’t want to meddle in it!” “What a shame!” Canon Galamba answered. “At least tell her to write it down on a piece of paper and give it to you in a sealed envelope!”

    The idea was launched, and Bishop da Silva agreed to it in principle.

    (pg 89):
    “It was soon learned at Leiria that Sister Lucy was gravely sick once more. Once again she suffered from an infection produced from a badly done vaccination. Bishop da Silva and Canon Galamba were soon seized with disquiet: was Lucy going to leave this world and take the Secret with her? Bishop da Silva decided to visit her.

    He came to Tuy alone on Wednesday, September 15. But Lucy was not even able to leave her bed to receive him, and the conversation took place at the infirmary. The bishop undoubtedly had come to ask her to write down the third Secret. However, he did not dare to give her the formal order. He was unwilling to take upon himself this responsibility. Lucy had recorded his hesitant statements for us, words which were to become the occasion of a terrible spiritual trial for her: «... If I wanted, if I thought it good to write the part of the Secret still missing, it would not be to publish it now, but so that it would be written.» These words were soon to plunge our seer in a terrible anguish. They did not express an order given in the name[…]”

    (pg 107)
    “Unfortunately, after his courageous decision of October, 1943, it seems that the Bishop of Leiria suddenly became frightened by the extent of the responsibilities he had taken upon himself... and he promptly sought to be relieved of them.

    (pg 108)
    “At the time the Bishop of Leiria received the sealed document (Father Alonso writes), he was also given a letter from Sister Lucy in which she made a few suggestions. One was that the document should be kept in his own possession until his death, when it was to be given to the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon.

    (pg 109)
    “What is certain is that in his desire to be relieved of a document whose extraordinary importance he had guessed in 1944, Bishop da Silva had the idea of sending it on to Rome. Father Alonso writes: «Cardinal Ottaviani has told us that in 1944, when the Secret of Fatima was committed to writing, there was some suggestion that it be taken to Rome, but that Vatican officials judged it more opportune to keep it in the episcopal chancery of Leiria

    Bishop da Silva, who was forced to remain the caretaker of the Secret himself, on December 8, 1945, placed the envelope sealed by Sister Lucy in a larger envelope, also sealed with wax, on which he wrote in his own hand:

    «This envelope with its contents is to be given to His Eminence Don Manuel, Patriarch of Lisbon, after my death. Leiria, December 8, 1945. José, Bishop of Leiria

    Then the envelope was placed in the safe of the episcopal curia, from which it never emerged except on very rare occasions, to be shown to a few privileged souls. Thus it was photographed by M. Pazen, the reporter from Life magazine, which published it in its edition of January 3, 1949. We have reproduced this striking photograph where the aging Bishop of Leiria can be seen seated before a table on which the envelope containing the Secret was placed. Let us add that, in spite of himself, Bishop da Silva remained the caretaker of the Secret until March 1957, a few months before his death.”

    (pg 112)

    “Bishop da Silva, from 1944 to 1957, was entrusted with keeping the third Secret. On the envelope containing the Secret – seen at the bottom of this photograph – he wrote with his own hand:

    Este envelope com o seu conteúdo será entregue a Sua Eminencia O Sr. Cardeal D. Manuel, Patriarca de Lisboa, depois da minha morte.
    Leiria, 8 de Dezembro de 1945
    † José, Bispo de Leiria”

    [This envelope with its contents shall be entrusted to His Eminence Cardinal D. Manuel (Cerejeira), Patriarch of Lisbon, after my death.
    Leiria, December 8, 1945
    † José, Bishop of Leiria.]

    (pg 397)
    May 21-22, 1946
    “ She spoke with Father De Marchi, and late in the morning, with Canon Formigao. Some of the words exchanged at that time are worth reporting. We know about them from the account published shortly afterwards in the review Stella:

    «“When do you expect to return to Spain?” “I must leave these places tomorrow without knowing where I shall go...”»

    Then the Canon added these words, which are vitally important for the history of the third Secret:

    «It occurred to us that on this occasion the seer might perhaps be called to Rome to tell the Holy Father, Pius XII, the third part of the Secret of Our Lady of Fatima, to which she refers in her latest writings.»


    Byron likes this.
  12. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    (beginning from pg 805)

    In spite of all the imprecisions, untruths and lies spread on this point since February of 1960, four important truths can be solidly established, truths founded on very numerous and solid testimonies.


    The first of these historical truths, and a highly significant one, is that Bishop da Silva could have read the Secret immediately, on June 17, 1944, or when he took possession of it, and he even could have revealed it as he saw fit. However, he absolutely did not want to.

    Father Alonso states, «Undoubtedly, the Bishop of Leiria could have opened the letter immediately.» When in 1947 someone asked him if he knew the Secret, Bishop da Silva answered: «No. I did not want to read it. Fatima is entirely God’s work, and I did not wish to interfere with it.» Let us observe that Bishop da Silva never justified his attitude by saying he did not have the right to open the Secret, which he surely would have done, had he been able to fall back on the slightest declaration of Sister Lucy in this sense. No, he avowed once more, a few months before his death: «Although I could have opened it when I wanted, I preferred not to do so.

    Why? The bishop gave this reason to Canon Galamba, who in turn told Father Alonso:

    «I asked him many times why he would not open it. He always answered, “It’s not my duty to interfere in this matter. Heaven’s secrets are not for me, nor do I need to burden myself with this responsibility.»

    “What a disconcerting response! As though the Queen of Heaven’s words were not a precious grace mercifully granted to the Church for the greater good of souls!

    So Bishop da Silva stubbornly refused to read it. The fact is so well established that Cardinal Ottaviani, in his discourse of February 11, 1967, at the Antonianum, said so clearly: «Although Lucy said he could, he did not wish to read it.» Let us note, however, in Don José’s defence, that although Sister Lucy had informed him, on Our Lady’s behalf, that he could read the Secret, it was only a wish and not a formal order. The testimony of Canon Galamba, an advisor and long-time friend of his bishop, leaves no doubt on this question too:

    «Lucy said only that it could be made known immediately, if the bishop so commanded. But she did not say that it had to be opened immediately. The dates for making it known were determined in a dialogue between the bishop and Lucy.»

    In any case, an initial fact is certain, and moreover nobody has even thought of questioning it: the immediate recipient of the Secret was Bishop da Silva.
    It was also planned in 1945 that, if he died, the precious document would go to Cardinal Cerejeira, Patriarch of Lisbon.

    This fact must be stressed, for it proves that the third Secret, contrary to everything said about it later on, was neither exclusively nor even explicitly addressed to the Holy Father. No, like the first two parts of the Secret, with which it forms a whole, it was entrusted to the Church, and first of all to the representatives of the Portuguese hierarchy, to whom it belonged to inform themselves about it and make it known.

    But that being said – no doubt because this final Secret, as we will demonstrate, concerns the authorities of the Church even more directly than the first two parts – Sister Lucy wished the Sovereign Pontiff to read it as early as possible.


    We have recalled how in May or June 1944, Sister Lucy expressed to the Bishop of Gurza her desire to speak with the Holy Father in person, to talk to him about the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but surely also about the third Secret, which she had just written down three months earlier.

    Father Alonso records another important fact:

    «Cardinal Ottaviani himself has told us that the Sacred Congregation was not interested in 1944 in having the document sent to Rome, preferring that the Bishop of Leiria should continue to keep it in his possession.»

    Finally, as we have said, during her pilgrimage to Fatima on May 21-22, 1946, serious consideration was given to Lucy going immediately on to Rome to see the Pope, and as Canon Formigao made clear, "to tell him the third part of the Secret of Our Lady of Fatima". After the regrettable abandonment of this project, the seer had to content herself with writing to him. She did so in July 1946, again expressing her desire to speak with him personally.

    Although our information is still very incomplete on this point, it seems very probable that Sister Lucy wanted Pius XII to learn the contents of the final Secret without delay.

    Since that did not happen – and this is a third important truth for which we will furnish unquestionable proofs – between 1944 and 1946 it was agreed between Lucy and Bishop da Silva that the final Secret would be divulged in 1960.


    A series of unimpeachable witnesses allows us to establish this fact with absolute certitude. Let us quote first of all the decisive words of Canon Galamba, which alone would be sufficient for our demonstration:

    «When the bishop refused to open the letter, Lucy made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first.»

    “AN IMPRESSIVE SERIES OF WITNESSES (1944-1953). Thus the date 1960 was indicated by Lucy to Bishop da Silva, perhaps in 1944. In any case, we have written testimonies to this effect in 1946. On February 3-4, Father Jongen interrogated Lucy:

    «“You have already made known two parts of the Secret. When will the time arrive for the third part?” “I communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria”, she answered. “But it cannot be made known before 1960.”»

    On August 12, 1946, Sister Lucy received John Haffert, who in a recent work also gives us an interesting testimony on this subject:

    «At the bishop’s house (in Leiria), I sat at the table on his right, with the four Canons. During that first dinner, Canon José Galamba de Oliveira turned to me when the bishop had left the room momentarily and asked: “Why don’t you ask the bishop to open the Secret?” Endeavouring not to show my ignorance concerning Fatima – which at that time was almost complete – I simply looked at him without expression. He continued: “The bishop can open the Secret. He doesn’t have to wait until 1960.”

    «Just then the bishop returned and there was a long moment of awkward silence. The other Canons were obviously also interested in seeing whether or not I would broach the subject to the bishop – the subject on which apparently he had silenced them on more than one previous occasion and on which Canon Oliveira was now taking advantage of a newcomer to again broach the question. I finally broke the silence by saying to the bishop that I understood there was a Secret still to be opened and was there some reason why the bishop did not wish to open it? His Excellency looked up with what to me was an unexpected degree of firmness.»

    One month later, on September 7, 1946, Cardinal Cerejeira was in Brazil for the closing of the Marian Congress of Campinas. He declared on the subject of the Secret of Fatima:

    «From the two parts of the Secret already revealed – the third part has not been made known, but it has been written and placed in a sealed envelope and will be opened in 1960 –, we know enough to enable us to conclude that the salvation of the world, in this extraordinary moment of history, has been placed by God in the Immaculate Heart of Mary.»

    In February 1960, the Patriarch of Lisbon, reporting the directions which the Bishop of Leiria «had passed on to him» on this subject, declared, again in the same sense:

    «Bishop da Silva enclosed (the envelope sealed by Lucy) in another envelope on which he indicated that the letter had to be opened in 1960 by himself, Bishop José Correia da Silva, if he were still alive, or if not, by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon.»

    There is another and even more important testimony: that of Canon Barthas, who during his conversations with Sister Lucy on October 17-18, 1946, had the opportunity to question her on the third Secret. Here is the account, which he published in 1952:

    «“When will the third element of the Secret be revealed to us?” Already in 1946, to this question Lucy and the Bishop of Leiria answered me uniformly, without hesitation and without comment: “In 1960.”

    “«And when I pushed my audacity so far as to ask why it was necessary to wait until then, the only response I received from either one was: “Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.”

    «The text of Our Lady’s words was written down by Sister Lucy and enclosed in a sealed envelope, and put in the safe of the Bishop of Leiria. It will be opened at the date indicated by Bishop José da Silva or by His Eminence the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon



    All testimonies reporting to us Sister Lucy’s repeated declarations lead us to a most important conclusion: Heaven desired and willed that Our Lady’s final Secret be believed and divulged. In 1944 at the earliest and in 1960 at the latest, for then it would become perfectly clear.


    Byron, garabandal and DeGaulle like this.
  13. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Mary’s Fatima plea to save souls from Hell ‘urgent and for today’: priest
    Hell is 'not closed or empty,' said Fr. Serafino Lanzetta told the Rome Life Forum, and Our Lady's plea at Fatima for prayers and sacrifice remains.
    Wed May 20, 2020 - 9:14 pm EST


    "However, because the consecration to Russia was delayed, and then made not as “precisely” as Mary had asked, Marxist ideology has been able to “triumph over the ruins of a collapsed communism,” Fr. Lanzetta said.

    Marxism has been “transformed” into a “worldwide petition for an equal society shaping a new man made in the likeness of man with his instincts and desires, with not even a gender-based difference,” he said.

    “This is our world today,” and this ideology is even “embraced within the Church,” resulting in a crisis of faith and a “creeping apostasy.”

    Marian consecration is an essential and efficacious remedy to this, Fr. Lanzetta said.

    Consecration is “perfect” when one makes a sacrificial offering of oneself to God through the mediation of His Mother, he said.

    “This is the way to respond to the call of the Fatima message: to offer everything to God in order to cooperate with Him for the salvation of mankind, as Our Lady did in a very unique manner.”

    However, consecration is not the same as “entrustment.”

    Entrustment describes an “easier” commitment, one which avoids sacrifice in favor of a “mere pastoral and existential approach to faith,” and which derives from a “minimalist, shallow consideration of Mary in our salvation,” he said.

    “Our Consecration to Mary lets us live in full the mystery of Marian co-redemption as asked by Our Lady of Fatima,” Fr. Lanzetta said.

    “In this way we can truly respond to Our Lady’s request to offer sacrifices so that many souls might be saved from an easy fall, so to speak, into eternal perdition. This appeal is urgent and it is for today.”

    AED, Mary's child and Jason Fernando like this.
  14. SgCatholic

    SgCatholic Guest

    Cardinal Burke: ‘Consecration of Russia’ to Our Lady ‘more needed now than ever’
    The cardinal connected the errors of communist Russia with the current corona crisis.
    By LifeSiteNews staff
    Wed May 20, 2020 - 12:40 pm EST

    Diane Montagna / LifeSiteNews
    ROME, May 20, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – Cardinal Raymond Burke renewed his call today for the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, as requested by Our Lady of Fatima, saying that the current worldwide coronavirus crisis shows that it is “more needed now than ever.”

    In a powerful address during the virtual Rome Life Forum hosted by Voice of the Family (read full talk below), the Cardinal connected the errors of communist Russia with the current crisis, highlighting the prominent role that the atheist communist regime of China has played in it.

    “The consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is more needed today than ever,” he said.

    “When we witness how the evil of atheistic materialism, which has its roots in Russia, directs in a radical way the government of the People’s Republic of China, we recognize that the great evil of communism must be healed at its roots through the consecration of Russia, as Our Lady has directed.”

    “Recognizing the necessity of a total conversion from atheistic materialism and communism to Christ, the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in accord with her explicit instruction, remains urgent.”

    (Read more about Cardinal Burke’s call for the consecration of Russia, and why it is still so necessary, here.)

    The Rome Life Forum, which runs from May 20-22, is on the topic “Coronavirus in the light of Fatima: a tragedy and a source of hope.”

    The Cardinal’s lecture, “Fatima: Heaven’s answer to a world in crisis,” dealt first of all with the coronavirus pandemic, the current suspension of liberties, and threats of worse indignities to the human person.

    Burke declared that it is “never morally justified to develop a vaccine through the use of cell lines of aborted fetuses” and that the thought of it being injected into one’s body is “rightly abhorrent.” He noted also that vaccination may not be imposed “in a totalitarian manner” on citizens.” He also decried proposals for placing microchips under people’s skin that would allow them to be “controlled by the State regarding health and about other matters.”

    Burke said that the current lockdown is not how God has “called us to live” and observed that there are people using the pandemic to promote a “single world government,” environmental causes, and even radical changes in the practise of the Catholic faith.

    The Cardinal was critical of the way some Church leaders have responded to the COVID-19 pandemic, saying that there has been a “failure” to announce the Gospel and to insist that the Church be permitted to carry on her mission.

    “Individual priests and Bishops have been wise and courageous in finding the means to remain close to God’s flock in their care, especially by bringing the Sacraments to those who are ill and dying, but sadly the general impression among the faithful is that their priests have been taken away from them or have abandoned them,” the Cardinal said.

    “The greater part of the faithful have been denied the Sacraments now for weeks.”

    Burke deplored the interference of the state in the Church’s worship during the pandemic and decried proposals for arrangements when it ends, including making attendance at Sunday Mass optional for the faithful.

    The Cardinal contradicted pastors who have called faithful Catholic selfish for wanting the sacraments during the emergency, saying that the laypeople’s desire is “at the heart of our faith.” Burke also decried irreverent methods proposed for the Communion of the Faithful.

    Burke raised the subject of the People’s Republic of China, noting that it believes the only acceptable religion in China is China itself. The Cardinal said its role in the genesis of the pandemic, its influence over health authorities, and its power over other nations raised questions. He also called for a return of the study of civics to American schools, so that students are equipped “to exercise the fundamental virtue of patriotism.”

    The Cardinal stressed that the atheist materialism and communism that threatened the Catholic faith in 1917 continues to threaten the world through the People’s Republic of China and drew his audience’s attention to the messages of Fatima. Burke enjoined it to pray daily for the conversion of Russia, do penance, and make reparation for sins.

    Register for Rome Life Forum here.

    (full text to be found at link above)

  15. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    Bishop dressed in white finally deciphered?

    And we saw in an immense light that is God: 'something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White 'we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.

    It looks like Dr. Taylor Marshall and his partner Dr. Ed Mazza finally figured out the hidden meaning of the Bishop dressed in white in the Fatima Prophecy.

    Bishop dressed in white = he is really a bishop... The Bishop of Rome, but he is not the Pope.

    Dr. Mazza's take is that Pope Benedict only gave his position of Bishop of Rome, but he did not surrender his Petrine episcopacy. so "Bishop" Francis is only a valid bishop of the jurisdiction of Rome....
    Mary's child, Byron and SgCatholic like this.
  16. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    So the prophecy of St. Malachi Martin on the Glory of Olive still stands.

    The prophecy of St. Francis of Assisi is still alive, regarding a pope not canonically who would not be a pastor but a destroyer!
  17. Byron

    Byron Powers

    Fr Michel specifically said, Pope Francis was not Peter the Roman.
  18. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    By the way after his death Pope Benedict would release his spiritual testament. What if in the final testament, he says he wants Vigano as his successor?
    Byron likes this.
  19. Byron

    Byron Powers

    This is HUGE!
    Jason Fernando likes this.
  20. Jason Fernando

    Jason Fernando Archangels

    Secret of Fatima: “In Portugal, the dogma of the faith will always be preserved”

    Could it be possible that Pope Benedict or his real successor would try to flee to Portugal and become the base of the true leadership of the Roman Catholic Church as opposed to a heretical church in Rome? hmmmm
    Mary's child and garabandal like this.

Share This Page