Guest Column: Untangling Fatima – Fact, Fiction and Prophecy

People gather at Cova da Iria for the penultimate apparition at Fatima on October 13, 1917. This was the date of the miracle of the sun, witnessed by thousands, including officials and reporters hostile to the events.

People gather at Cova da Iria for the penultimate apparition at Fatima on October 13, 1917. This was the date of the miracle of the sun, witnessed by thousands, including officials and reporters hostile to the events.

By Peter B

(This column was written by a working European theologian at my invitation. While he is identified here only as Peter B, I am fully advised of his full name, address and credentials. While I have emphasized that the focus of this blog is to help people live the next right step rather than speculate on the sensational, one of the very appealing things about Catholicism to me in my early days of contemplation on it was both the rigor and vigor of its intellectual tradition. It deeply saddens me that much of what passes for debate these days is merely ponderous and bitter swapping of insults. Peter has a significantly different take on this than I do – but I much admire the rigor with which he makes his case and the full fidelity to the faith he grounds himself in. I publish this both as an example of what reasoned disagreement should be and in respect for the centrality of Fatima to the times we are in. I am deeply grateful to Peter for accepting my invitation.

This is a posting in which the comments section is not automatically open. You are welcome to submit a comment as you normally would. I will consider them for addition based on their rigor, scholarship and fidelity.)

Greetings from France! Following some stimulating exchanges with Charlie on the ‘Mother of God’ Forum I am taking up his hospitable offer of writing a guest post for this always invigorating blog on the thorny subject of Fatima in response to Charlie’s ‘Choose or Perish’ piece of August 11. Before doing so (not without an appropriate dose of fear and trembling), let me first emphasize that my purpose is not at all to question Charlie’s own private revelations, which I take with full seriousness. Nor am I seeking to give unqualified approval to all the ‘conspiracy archeologists’ out there whose investigative writing on the issue of Fatima and the Vatican is a mixture of the good, the bad, the ugly… and the downright childish. If I am proposing a slightly different reading from Charlie’s, I do so not in order to argue a case, but in an attempt to assess the evidence as completely and dispassionately as possible, taking as my watchword the famous advice of Canadian Jesuit philosopher Bernard Lonergan: ‘be attentive, be intelligent, be reasonable, be responsible’.

My perspective is both that of a believer and a trained theologian operating (in the arcane world of interdisciplinary journals, hopelessly obscure footnotes and seemingly endless peer-review processes) at the intersection between faith’s dialogue with culture/science and the study of contemporary mysticism. One hat I wear is that of a member of a science/religion team at an undeservedly under-funded European university headed by a man who recently prefaced the latest book by the great René Laurentin, whose courageous and faith-filled research I have found a continual inspiration. For decades Abbé Laurentin has pursued an unfashionable path in attempting a genuine reconciliation between a mystically-oriented faith and the proper use of God-given reason; his commitment to the ‘unity of truth’ has allowed him as few other intellectuals (Hans Urs von Balthasar, Jean Guitton and Père François Brune being notable exceptions) to pursue rigorous scholarly inquiry while also treating mystical revelation, when carefully discerned, as a potentially genuine source not only of spiritual inspiration but of knowledge.

So, following a similar methodology, regarding the questions touched upon by Charlie’s post – the Third Secret of Fatima, the Consecration of Russia and predictions of apostasy within the Vatican, my provisional conclusion based on my own research, taking into account both the work of historical scholarship and an extensive survey of 8000+ pages of alleged private revelation (Catholic and non-Catholic) in various languages, is more or less as follows:

a) St John Paul II’s Consecration of 1984, as an act of faith and obedience, was indeed of great benefit to the Church and humanity, and surely played a major role in both the collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1989-1991 and the revival of religious freedom in Russia. However, the case that it did not entirely fulfill Heaven’s original wishes, which not only concerned the Pope but all the bishops, nonetheless needs to be taken seriously, not least because of the critical state of geo-political tensions in the world at the present time. For example, even if you do not take the hardline stance that the conversion of Russia referred to in Fatima would require a wholesale conversion to Catholicism, the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church remains sadly prone in public statements to attacking the Catholic Church (as the crisis in the Ukraine has demonstrated) would seem to indicate that Russian conversion is at best a work in progress.

Although I have the greatest respect both for Sr Lucia and St John Paul II and would not, unlike the conspiracy buffs, for a moment question their sincerity, their pronouncements about the fulfillment of Heaven’s wishes for the Consecration of Russia were stated as personal convictions, not as far as I know as the result of direct revelation from Above. The same of course goes for those taking the other side of the argument, starting with Fr Gabriele Amorth, whose eyewitness testimony that politicians prohibited John Paul II from mentioning Russia explicitly in 1984 cannot be overlooked, given that he was the organizer of the event in St Peter’s Square. It seems that we have a genuine conundrum here.

As regards whether contemporary alleged prophecy is of any assistance in resolving the question, it has to be said that in all my reading I am yet to come across a credible source that explicitly confirms the total conformity of the Consecration with Our Lady’s request (I know that a 2009 message supposedly received by Fernande Navarro – a.k.a. ‘JNSR’- in France has said this, but her reliability has been questioned by many, including René Laurentin, not least on the grounds of some dubious Mariology and a sense of the intrusion of the supposed locutionary’s personal subjectivity into her ‘messages’). On the other hand, several sources which warrant serious consideration more generally – and I say this on the basis of having studied hundreds of pages – have indicated the contrary regarding the Consecration; this is not only a question of ‘Locutions to the World’ (towards which I for the moment take an agnostic view), but also Luz de Maria Bonilla ( and the ‘God Speaks Will You Listen’ locutions purportedly received by Cletus Schefers and Verne Dagenais:

My personal opinion, although this could change in the light of new material, is that the nuanced position found in the purported words of Jesus to Verne Dagenais – who impressed many of us considerably when he responded personally to detailed questions on the locutions over at the ‘Mother of God Forum’ – is the reading of the 1984 Fatima Consecration which best fits the evidence, i.e. as a partial fulfillment.

b) Regarding the Third Secret, there are still a number of unanswered questions which suggest that the matter cannot yet be considered closed, not least concerning John Paul II’s statement in Fulda in 1980 reported by the German Stimme des Glaubens magazine (in which the Pope apparently described material other than that in the published secret) and the whole role of Cardinal Bertone in the release and interpretation of the secret in 2000, which have been subjected to penetrating and as yet unanswered critique from scholars such as Antonio Socci. Besides more general ongoing question marks concerning the activities of Cardinal Bertone, many reservations being expressed from within the Magisterium itself by senior cardinals, a particular issue is the rationale for Bertone’s published view that Fatima can be consigned to the past, one which he was forced to revise in the light of widely-publicized remarks of Benedict XVI in 2010 concerning the prophecy’s future dimension.

Here a more general point seems in order. One of the biggest obstacles to ascertaining the truth both regarding the secret and the Consecration is that so much of the writing has been agenda-driven. A strange and not-so-coherent alliance seems to have developed between the Catholic Right (either those at the outer limits of faithfulness to the Magisterium, such as Fr Kramer et al., or those well outside the boundaries such as the SSPX, Bishop Williamson…) and the militant Protestant camp, of which a prime example is Thomas Horn, the degree of whose media exposure in uninformed Evangelical circles has to be considered highly unhelpful. Having read a little of the latter’s published material regarding Fatima, besides the outlandish nature of many of his theses, there is an obvious and enormous logical problem with his argument. On one hand, he states that, as a Protestant – of a certain extreme variety, I might add -, he regards all Popes as false prophets, yet one the other he appeals to excerpts from approved Catholic private revelation in search of credible evidence to build his case!! This is of course utterly self-contradictory: read properly, that same private revelation completely deconstructs his theological position and anti-Papalism. On the philosophical level, this is simply not serious writing, but it can unfortunately appear so at first glance as Horn does quote some genuine scholarship (e.g. Socci, whose work I very much respect and who is not merely an ideologue), albeit as an element of an improbably heady cocktail featuring everything from Nostradamus and the Zohar to UFOs and the Hindu goddess Kali ( ).

c) As to whether predictions of apostasy within the higher echelons of the Catholic Church are more than the fantasy of conspiracy addicts, this is indeed a highly sensitive issue which needs to be handled with extreme caution, especially when supposed private revelation is brought into the equation. This is evident from the damage that has clearly been done by self-proclaimed ‘prophecy’ labelling Pope Francis as a false prophet (‘Maria Divine Mercy’ being the most spectacular example, but this tendency goes back to the sedevacantist Bayside ‘apparitions’ back in the 1970s). One particularly unfortunate result of a tradition of wholly irresponsible and undiscerning interpretation of alleged private revelation has been to marginalize responsible study of prophecy; I can personally testify that when I started to tell some educated Catholic friends about my reading of contemporary mystics, the reaction was one of horror that I should be associating myself with the most reactionary sub-culture within the Church! This is of course a distortion, as the most credible prophetic material itself does not advocate a Lefevrist/sedevacantist view of history but consistently urges faithfulness towards the official Magisterium. That such a sub-culture exists, however, is sadly a historical and sociological fact.

What is nonetheless certain is that the notion of coming high-level conflict resembling something akin to a schism within the Catholic hierarchy is attested by approved private revelation, dating at least as far back as the visions of Bl Anne Catherine Emmerich, as Mark Mallett has pointed out in a number of typically cogent blog posts:

[A word of scholarly caution here; it needs to be acknowledged that the authenticity of the much-quoted words of Mélanie Calvat’s 1879 version of her La Salette ‘secret’ stating that ‘Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist’ is a disputed question among specialists, some of whom feel that this was her own posterior embellishment]

The words received by Sr Agnes Sasagawa during the approved apparitions in Akita on October 13, 1973 are especially clear:

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

As for the Pope’s personal role in such a conflict, the notion that a legitimately elected Pontiff will apostasize and betray the faith has of course to be rejected as contrary to the dogma of Papal infallibility – a point strongly made by Dr Mark Miravalle, Mark Mallett and others in contending against the alleged prophecies of ‘Maria Divine Mercy’ targeting Pope Francis. As a matter of principle, no credence should be given to any private revelation that encourages disobedience against a reigning Pontiff. In messages received by a number of locutionaries whom I take seriously, adherence to the ‘three whitenesses’ of St John Bosco’s famous dream of 1862 – the Mother of God, the Pope and the Eucharist -, is presented as a litmus test of prophetic authenticity, and this would seem to be a very solid yardstick.

What is more difficult to judge is the notion that at some point in the future an illegitimately elected Pope (antipope) could effectively apostasize. This is far harder to dismiss, given that a) there have been antipopes in the past and b) obviously such an antipope would not be covered by the charism of infallibility. Here it should be said that there are a number of credible prophetic voices out there whose alleged locutions say just this, Verne Dagenais, Sulema and Pedro Régis being three examples. That the words to Sulema and Pedro Régis have been unjustifiably used by others to attack Pope Francis does not automatically inauthenticate them. It should be added that according to these purported prophetic sources apostasy would, it should be added, only be very short-lived and would not therefore contradict Christ’s words about the ‘gates of Hell’ not prevailing against the Church in any ultimate sense; we would only be talking about a temporary setback here prior to a dramatic re-establishment of Divine Truth. Furthermore, the scenario predicted by Pedro Régis a number of years ago, well before Benedict XVI’s retirement, that there will come a time when there are Two Popes, only one of whom is authentic, is by no means impossible. I admit to speculating here, but the existence of a ‘Pope Emeritus’ (a title which Pope Francis would presumably also acquire on retirement) effectively guarantees, even in the event of some kind of illegitimate power grab at a future conclave, there will still be a genuine Vicar of Christ on earth…

It is perhaps also worth noting that what the messages received by Verne Dagenais apparently foresee – that there will come a false church led by an antipope uniting lukewarm Catholics with liberal Protestants -, lines up very closely with visions/angelic visitations that at least two of the most credible non-Catholic prophetic ministers have received independently in America (Terry Bennett) and Australia (Neville Johnson), both figures being outspokenly pro-Catholic in their predictions that there will be great revival in the Catholic Church and that millions of Catholics will be martyred for refusing to accept apostasy (for what it’s worth, the tentative timeline for this is given as 2022-2028, by which stage Pope Francis, if still alive, may well have retired).

d) That there is masonic infiltration of the Catholic Church, as alleged by many mystics from St Pio onwards, is surely beyond reasonable doubt (as well as of other Christian denominations, particularly Anglican and Lutheran – a former Lutheran bishop of Paris who was the professor of a friend of mine was an open freemason until he converted to Catholicism ). Masonic sources themselves point to this, such as Gioele Magaldi’s ‘reformist’ Grande Oriente Democratico

or former grand master of the Grand Orient de France Michel Baroin (1930-1987), who allegedly claimed in the 1980s that 60+ French bishops were Lodge members. Although of course there may be an element of bragging in this, just as Magaldi’s recent claim in the book MASSONI: Società a responsibilità illimitata (Chiarelettere Editore, 2012) that the late Carlo Maria Martini was interested in Masonic initiation may be an attempt at recuperation for his own organization’s purposes, it is indicative of a long-standing Masonic desire for what might be termed ‘theological colonization’, a further example being the awarding of the German Freemasons’ Culture Prize to Prof. Hans Küng in 2007.

Whatever the truth of Baroin’s and Magaldi’s remarks, the documentary evidence for the hand of Freemasonry in the Vatican for several decades is overwhelming and comes from several directions. It is not merely an invention of the SSPX/sedevacantist camp, although the latter have frequently overstated their case and drawn logically erroneous inferences from the evidence, for example arguing since the 1960s that the official Magisterium itself is Masonic at the core, which is a completely unjustified conclusion.

A good example of convergent evidence from several sources is the question of the role of Italian Masonry in the untimely death of Pope John Paul I in 1978. Here we have testimony of the ex-Mafioso turned Italian police collaborator Vincenzo Calcara testifying to the collusion of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, the Italian Mafia and several cardinals in the untimely death of Pope John Paul I;

Calcara’s account is coherent both with the investigative hypothesis of British author David Yallop (In God’s Name) and alleged private revelation concerning John Paul I received by Don Ottavio Michelini (a former cameriere segreto of Pope Paul VI whose six volumes of purported locutions I have never seen seriously challenged) and Swiss mystic Erika Schwarzach (the subject of one of Hans Urs von Balthasar’s final books). As ferocious critic of Freemasonry Gabriele Amorth – who also believes that John Paul I was murdered – has pointed out, a further source of information indicating that something extremely sinister is afoot in the Vatican is the testimony of demons under obedience during exorcisms. In his recent book Memorie di un esorcista (Piemme, 2010) Fr Amorth goes as far as to claim on the basis of these demonic ‘confessions’ that even cardinals belong to Satanic sects operating in Rome.

In a climate where the question of ecclesiastical Masonry is no longer a fringe topic but is openly discussed in mainstream media outlets (at least in Italy, as has been the case since the saga of the P2 ‘rogue’ Masonic lodge in the 1970s), it is a surely a matter of grave concern that Stefano Bisi, incoming Grand Master of the Italian Grand Orient, has recently re-stated the Lodge’s desire for a rapprochement with the Catholic Church, calling for a ‘Vatican III’ … To say that this can hardly be considered an innocent proposal is an understatement.

Watch and pray – hard!

Peter B.

About charliej373

Charlie Johnston is a former newspaper editor, radio talk show host and political consultant. From Feb. 11, 2011 to Aug. 21, 2012, he walked 3,200 miles across the country, sleeping in the woods, meeting people and praying as he went. He has received prophetic visitation all his life, which he has vetted through a trio of priests over the last 20 years, and now speaks publicly about on this site. Yet he emphasizes that we find God most surely through the ordinary, doing the little things we should with faith and fidelity. Hence the name, The Next Right Step. The visitations inform his work, but are not the focus of it. He lives in the Archdiocese of Denver in the United States.
This entry was posted in Guest Columns, Prophecy and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Guest Column: Untangling Fatima – Fact, Fiction and Prophecy

  1. vicardwm says:

    Thank you, “Peter B” for your analysis. This is basically the same position as I take on all of the issues. I feel Mark Mallett is really on the right track. Is there somewhere that I can read more of your work in this area? God bless!


  2. rjsauro says:

    Dear Charlie,

    I have one comment on what is stated in this article.

    It concerns the last sentence in the second para.of item a); (bold emphasis are mine) quote

    *”The same of course goes for those taking the other side of the argument, starting with Fr Gabriele Amorth, whose eyewitness testimony that politicians prohibited John Paul II from mentioning Russia explicitly in 1984 cannot be overlooked, given that he was the organizer of the event in St Peter’s Square. It seems that we have a genuine conundrum here.”*

    I don’t believe the Fatima prophecy required explicit mention of Russia by name. I think it simply stated that Russia be consecrated. Please correct if me I am mistaken.

    If this is correct it seems the consecrating pontiff could refer to Russia by some other means, and the then Pope JP II did precisely that.

    I know there is a certain priest (I will not mention his name) who continually harps on the legalism that Russia was not mentioned by name. But I have not found that specificity required by the prophecy.

    God Bless,

    Rick Sauro


    • charliej373 says:

      Rick, I concur with your interpretation of the matter. I also agree that Peter has a plausible interpretation of the matter that does not wander afield from the faith. Obviously, with my professional political background, I always appreciated the demands of formal treaty agreements – and how they affected the language of the consecration. But at a deeper level, from the very beginning of my understanding of the unusual nature of my visions and visitations, I have stuck to the importance of obedience. At seven years old, I told my angel I would go on with training but would not act unless an authority I could submit to here would confirm the direction. As I have reported before, he was utterly delighted by that conviction on my part. Obedience to lawful authority is the most under-valued of spiritual virtues. I have written that if Christ, Himself, appeared to me at Mass in front of everyone and told me to speak, I would ask the priest presiding for permission. If the priest refused I would not speak – and Christ would congratulate me on my obedience to lawful authority. If it were not such a lustrous virtue, why would Jesus, who is God, Himself, have made a point of being obedient to Mary and Joseph after the temple? When John the Baptist objected to baptizing Jesus, claiming that rather, he needed to baptize by Jesus, the Lord told him to suffer it now, for it is proper that all righteousness be fulfilled. Throughout history there are abundant example of great saints who were opposed or sometimes even persecuted by those in authority over them. Yet in almost all cases, those saints were obedient without abdicating their rights as baptized Christians and later, the legitimate superiors who opposed them were shown by the hand of God, Himself, of their authenticity. If these saints had reacted with anger and a spirit of bitter contention, how could ultimate grace have abounded? It would have just degenerated into a corrosive battle of wills. Instead, the saints were right and, by their lawful obedience to those who had lawful authority even when they were wrong, even more were brought to the fullness of the faith. It is a failure to trust the power of God to believe that right cannot be accomplished unless your will is submitted to. Lawful obedience is not an impediment to faith, but a perfection of it.


      • vicardwm says:

        My opinion would be that if Mary asked for the consecration of Russia in a public manner (involving the cooperation of all the world’s bishops), then the presumption would be that Russia should be mentioned, since we are counseled to let our “yes” mean “yes” and our “no” mean “no.” It is not entirely clear, however. The proof of the pudding to me, though, is: if the consecration took place as requested, then we should see Russia converting and the triumph of the Immaculate Heart following as a consequence. Did we see this in 1984? No, we did not. We did see the collapse of the Soviet Empire as a result, but if the time period from 1984-2014 is the time of peace promised us, I for one would feel jipped. I agree with the message that Peter posted that it had a positive effect, but was not the full consecration that was asked for. Surely the conversion of Russia means more than simply a retreat from the most virulent form of atheistic communism?

        I do agree with Donna below that the laity should be focusing on the Five First Saturdays. That was also an essential point of the Fatima message, and one that is in our control.


  3. Ann says:

    Professor Peter
    Thank you!!! For ten years I did wander in the “fever swamps” of the internet, as Charlie puts it, and am so grateful for your scholarship and integrity. Now seeing how the puzzle pieces may fit together brings peace. I can let it go and “acknowledge God, take the next right step and be a sign of hope to those around me.” Your essay and Charlie and Mark’s writing have helped me immensely to realize God’s presence and those mundane (and holy!) tasks of every day life are where my focus needs to be.
    On this great feast of the Assumption of Mary into Heaven,
    My soul magnifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour!


  4. Lois says:

    As I was finishing Mr. Sauro’s comment it popped into my head that, no, the Lord is not legalistic; the other side, however is a different story…Just thinking outloud, but perhaps the 1984 consecration is not recognized by those entities who cause the problems and so the errors still spread, since Russia was in fact singled out in the request but not in the action.


  5. aj says:

    You know Charlie ole chap, I’m very tempted to say to this whole matter of “consecrated or not consecrated”…so what! And that’s a loving “so what” 🙂 . I have been through both sides of the divide and was reading Peter Bs analysis and it just hit me smack bang. If the Pope didn’t do what was requested, then he would have answered for that on his judgement day, but whether he did or not really does not empower me any more, or any less, to love others as Jesus loves me. So I ask the question in your words Charlie; how does it affect me making the next right step? And the truth is, it does not. For the message of Fatima remains the same.

    When I ponder the words of Jesus that we must become like children, I think of simplicity, Trust and Obedience. By no means am I advocating that we throw all books away and turn to the forest (well…that time may come). In fact I owe intellectualism garnished with an overdose of Grace (or the other way around) for my deepening of faith. However, I’ve also seen in myself and others that we can go deeper in our knowledge of faith without growing deeper in faith.

    I’ve said all this to simply say that whether you lived in the last century or this one, you are going to die and must answer to God for how much you’ve loved. Let us ponder the signs of the times but let them not be a distraction or “the” focus. The signs are but an arrow pointing to Jesus and how we must continuously renounce ourselves, pick up our Cross and follow Him on the road of Love.

    To quote our beloved St. Anthony of the Child Jesus (Padua). How this man loved his saviour:
    “The Lord manifests Himself to those who stop for some time in peace and humility of heart. If you look in murky and turbulent waters, you cannot see the reflection of your face. If you want to see the face of Christ, stop and collect your thoughts in silence, and close the door of your soul to the noise of external things.” And I add with you permission Charlie..”take the next right step”.

    JESUS we Trust in You…help our lack of Trust!


  6. anne says:

    Must add. Let us not forget Pope Benedict’s prayer in May of 2010……may the next 7 years hasten towards the fulfillment of Fatima. We are living the prayer through our prayers, sacrifices etc.


  7. donna269 says:

    Peter B., as usual you are a gentleman and a scholar! I love reading your composed, theologically sound responses on MOG forum….

    But Charlie, I MUST bring up the second most important point of the Fatima Message. We all get caught up in whether the Consecration of Russia was done by JP II or is there a hidden message the public has not heard…..

    The ONLY thing within my or your or anyone’s control on earth is the other request by Our Lady at Fatima…..quite simply it is the request for 5 First Saturdays by the world. Are we doing that? Is that the reason the world is in shambles? We have been requested by the Mother of God to go to 5 First Saturday and perform specific requests by her. Since your forum attracts many serious Catholics, I would challenge them to do this! I myself have been completely lax for several years on this and am challenging myself to do this….We need to write an article on that request by Our Lady because quite simply, we can ALL DO SOMETHING about the First Five Saturday Request at Fatima…..

    God Bless,


  8. donna269 says:

    In Sister Lucia’s own words:

    On November 1, 1927, Sister Lucy wrote to her godmother, Dona Maria de Miranda:

    “I don’t know if you already know about the reparatory devotion of the five Saturdays to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. As it is still recent, I would like to inspire you to practice it, because it is requested by Our dear Heavenly Mother and Jesus has manifested a desire that it be practiced. Also, it seems to me that you would be fortunate, dear godmother, not only to know it and to give Jesus the consolation of practicing it, but also to make it known and embraced by many other persons.

    “It consists in this: During five months on the first Saturday, to receive Jesus in Communion, recite a Rosary, keep Our Lady company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the mysteries of the Rosary, and make a confession. The confession can be made a few days earlier, and if in this previous confession you have forgotten the (required) intention the following intention can be offered, provided that on the first Saturday one receives Holy Communion in a state of grace, with the intention of repairing for offenses against the Most Holy Virgin and which afflict Her Immaculate Heart.

    “It seems to me, my dear godmother, that we are fortunate to be able to give Our dear Heavenly Mother this proof of love, for we know that She desires it to be offered to Her. As for myself, I avow that I am never so happy as when first Saturday arrives. Isn’t it true that our greatest happiness is to belong entirely to Jesus and Mary and to love Them and Them alone, without reserve? We see this so clearly in the lives of the saints…They were happy because they loved, and we, my dear godmother, we must seek to love as they did, not only to enjoy Jesus, which is the least important — because if we do not enjoy Him here below, we will enjoy Him up above — but to give Jesus and Mary the consolation for being loved…and that in exchange for this love they might be able to save many souls.”

    Liked by 1 person

  9. charliej373 says:

    Thanks to all who read this. I cleared through a small sampling of insightful comments, that you might see what was on the minds of those who visited.


  10. Jason says:

    Charlie I just discovered you thru Mark Mallet’s blog. I remember the article that featured you on SpiritDaily. I’m in The Peter B camp after reading Antonio Socci’s Fourth Secret. Socci is very main stream and makes a very compelling case that is not insulting to JPII or B16. I am providing a 8/17/14 blog entry from Socci that refers to B16 reference to 2017 and the fulfillment of the Truimph at Fatima in 2010. I would note that he cites B16 pointing towards 2017 as a possible fulfillment of this long awaited development. God bless and let’s pray for the Truimph of Her
    Immaculate Heart.

    AUGUST 17, 2014 / IN THE NEWS

    There is a novelty in the yellow of the “third secret of Fatima,” a prophecy that runs throughout the twentieth century and looks set to its final realization.

    The novelty is contained in an official publication of the Carmel of Coimbra, the one where she lived and died (in 2005) Sister Lucia dos Santos, the last seer. Entitled “A caminho sob or olhar de Maria” and a biography of Sister Lucia, written by the sisters, with the valuable unpublished documents of the same seer.

    Before you see them you have to remember well what is the story of Fatima.


    In the blaze of the Great War, May 13, 1917 Our Lady appears in the Portuguese village, to three shepherd children.

    The secular newspapers deride the “gullible” in defiance of the Virgin to give a public sign of his presence. She promises to be the three children that will give the sign and the last apparition, that of October 13, 70 thousand people, who came to the Cova de Iria assist terrified churning of the sun in the sky. A phenomenon that tomorrow will be reported in the newspapers (even anti-clerical).

    In the apparition of July 13, Our Lady had given the children a message for the whole world. It was the great prophecy about the following decades if humanity had not come back to God.

    In fact, we realized everything: the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, the spread of communism in the world, the bloody persecutions against the Church, and finally the tragic second world war.

    Then there was a third part of the secret that you had to reveal – Our Lady said – in 1960 arrived on that date John XXIII secreted everything was terrible because its content.

    Provoked such a welter of hypotheses. In 2000, John Paul II made known the text of the third secret, which contains the famous vision of the “bishop dressed in white”, with the Pope through a destroyed city, the many corpses and then the martyrdom of the Holy Father, bishops, priests, and faithful.

    Since many items you could guess that was not all. I, like other authors, in 2006 I published a book, “The Fourth Secret of Fatima”, where I showed that the missing part, written and sent later, in the words of Our Lady explained that the vision itself.

    The same secretary of John XXIII, Archbishop Capovilla, who had lived all in the first person, in a conversation with Paolini just mentioned the existence of the mysterious “attachment”.

    By Church has officially denied that it exists and that there are prophecies concerning our times.

    Ratzinger in 2010

    But a resounding confirmation came implied by Benedict XVI during an unexpected pilgrimage to Fatima, May 13, 2010, stated: “It is mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is completed.”

    He added: “shows the reality of the future of the Church, which gradually grow and show … and so are the sufferings of the Church that are announced.”

    But such prophecies could be in that text?

    They think these two phrases uttered in the speech of the Pope at Fatima: “Man has succeeded in unleashing a cycle of death and terror, but can not stop it.” And then: “Faith in large regions of the earth, is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer being fed.”

    From the words of Pope Benedict s’intuì, therefore, that there really is in the Third Secret and the other is dramatic for the world and for the Church. Just to the pope’s visit is perhaps due to the release of this book that filters out another piece of truth.

    This volume draws on the letters of Sister Lucia and the unpublished diary entitled “My journey”. Impressive, among unpublished, is the story of how Sister Lucia overcame the terror that prevented her from writing the Third Secret.


    Around 16 of January 3, 1944, in the chapel of the convent, before the tabernacle, Lucia asked Jesus to let her know his will: “I feel then that the hand of friendship, loving and motherly touches my shoulder.”

    E ‘”the Mother of Heaven” that says, “Stay in peace and write what you command, but not what I was given to understand its significance,” meaning to allude to the meaning of the vision that the Virgin herself had revealed.

    Immediately after – says Sister Lucia – “I heard the spirit flooded by a mystery of light that is God, and in Him I have seen and heard: the tip of the spear like a flame that is detached, touches the axis of the earth, and it trembles mountains , cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers and the clouds are out of limits, overflow, flood and drag along in a whirlwind, homes and people into a number that can not be counted, is the purification of the world from sin in which they are immersed. The hatred, ambition, causing destructive war. After I heard the accelerated throb of the heart and in my spirit a soft voice that said, ‘in time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. In eternity, Heaven! ‘. This word ‘Heaven’ filled my heart with peace and happiness, so that, almost without realizing, I kept telling myself for a long time: the sky, the sky. ”

    So you are given the strength to write down the Third Secret.

    The novel that I just mentioned is a very interesting document, where the insiders are easily confirmed to the historical reconstruction that the Third Secret is composed of two parts: one, the vision, it was written and sent before, while the other – that in the words of the Virgin Mary is the “meaning” of the vision itself – it was written and sent later.

    And ‘the famous and mysterious “attachment” to which hinted Capovilla. E ‘the text, still unpublished, which presumably is the part that most frightened Sister Lucia. The same party that frightened John XXIII (but also before him, Pope Pius XII) and Roncalli decided not to disclose because – in his view – could be just a thought of Sister Lucia and do not have supernatural origin.

    It ‘a part so explosive that continues today, to officially deny its existence. And the opening of Benedict XVI in 2010, which also led to the publication of this volume has now been closed.


    This is demonstrated by what happened to Paolini, the largest Italian scholar of Fatima that, given the pages of this book that I sent him, wrote to the Carmel of Coimbra asking to see the two unpublished works mentioned in the book, believing that there will are more details on the secreted.

    The letter arrived at its destination (it is authentic receipt), but had no answer. Paolini then wrote again entering into the merits and asking if Sister Lucia has ever put on paper that “the meaning of the vision” that had been given by the High and understand that the January 3rd avoided to note the suggestion of Madonna ” in the works that I asked you to see there is no reference to ‘something more’ in respect of the Secret of Fatima, as yet unpublished verbatim? “.

    The letter is received by June 6. But it too had no answer. Yet it would have been easy to say no. Evidently the answer was “yes”, but you can not give, because it would be explosive. So silent.

    However, the vision that I just mentioned refers to the two elements that are supposedly contained in the unpublished text of the Secret: the prophecy of an immense tragedy for the world and a great apostasy and crisis in the Church. A test apocalyptic at the end of which – Our Lady said at Fatima same – “My Immaculate Heart will triumph.”

    A hoped this “triumph” in 2010 made reference Benedict XVI: “May the seven years which separate us from the centenary of the Apparitions (2017) to hasten the anticipated triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, to the glory of the Most Holy Trinity.”

    It means that today, 2014, we have already entered into the frightening evidence? In fact if you look at the record …

    Antonio Socci

    From “Free”, August 17, 2014

    Facebook: “Antonio Socci official page”



  11. Jack says:

    The namely mention of Russia during the Consecration act cannot be avoided. Not doing it is akin to omit the baptism name of somebody while baptizing him. Therefore since the requirements of Our Lady were partially fulfilled, we partially got the promised fruits.
    Regarding the 3rd Secret, we are CERTAIN that a part of this Secret contains WORDS uttered by Our Lady since the press release of the Vatican on feb 8th, 1960 specifically spoke of WORDS adressed by the Virgin as follows:
    “Although the Church recognizes the Fatima apparitions, She does not desire to take the responsibility of guaranteeing the veracity of the WORDS the three shepherd children said that the Virgin Mary had addressed to them.”
    There are no WORDS in the 3r Secret as it was unveiled in 2000. Therefore, since I don’t dare to say that the Vatican divulged a fake, I prefer to say that we got only a part of this 3rd Secret.


    • charliej373 says:

      If you had begun your comment with the words, “I think…” it would have been a reasonable piece of commentary. But the way you phrased it, you claim authority to substitute your judgment for that of the Pope and Bishops on a matter in which Christ gave them sole authority. So it is disobedient – and not as well informed as you might think.

      The Vatican and Russia had a treaty at the time in which the Vatican agreed not to speak of Russia publicly in a way that could be construed as a negative criticism. It was a treaty that was freely entered and that had secured some protection for Christians living behind the ‘Iron Curtain.’ Now you may think that a treaty is nothing compared to God’s command – but God’s command is obedience and that we keep our word. I know in my own case, if Christ visibly came at Mass and told me, for all to hear, to rise up and speak to those assembled, I would first ask the permission of the priest. If the priest said, “No,” I would sit back down. Christ would congratulate me – for I had lived the obedience I promised from the beginning. God expects us to live up to our word when it is freely given. You might criticize Vatican officials for having made the treaty; you might criticize them for not having acted sooner. All within the realm of reasonable commentary – though I’m not sure how fruitful it is in these times. You seem like a decent fellow. I can’t believe you are really saying that regardless of what St. John Paul said, regardless of what Pope Emeritus Benedict said, regardless of what Sr. Lucia said, now I, Jack, have spoken and the matter is settled. I appeal to you to rethink how you want to voice your opinion.


  12. Chris Young says:

    Although I am on the fence regarding “Locutions to the world”, one idea “Mary” puts forth within is that the consecration must name Russia, not so much because of “legalism”, but because it is essential for the Russian people to hear it said. It would be a combination of the work of the Holy Spirit, and the word of the priest – and isn’t that always the way? God wants us to share in His work. After the consecration, and the work of the Spirit, when the Fire begins to kindle their spirits, then the people would remember that it was the Pope who lit the Fire. This seems to me to be very practical and entirely plausible.


  13. Julis says:

    It never ceases to amaze little old me how all these big wigs, politicians and Theologians alike are afraid of a sweet little Heavenly lady. And how in the name of God could consecrating them or us by name could it be taken as anything other than a loving embrace or inclusion. How can anyone imagine it would be derogatory to be consecrated or included in the loving heart of our Heavenly Mother!


  14. Jacquie says:

    I believe that Sr Lucia herself said, the consecration was accepted by heaven. I don’t remember which book. Does anyone else? This would be pretty important, no?


    • charliej373 says:

      She did, indeed, Jacquie. A few months back I had a rather hot dispute with some…because whatever anyone else says, I take the word of St. John Paul and Sr. Lucia that it was done and accepted. Period. But, I am reasonable about different views here provided they are said civilly and that they do not obviously contradict either Scripture or the Magisterium. And you can make a case, provided it is respectful, that it was not done precisely as originally directed.


      • Jacqueline Nevinger says:

        Yes. I agree it was not done as requested. But more to the point is if one takes St Lucia’s word that the consecration was requested by Our Lady it seems inconsistent not to accept her word that heaven accepted the consecration by JPII. I read the comments but the discussions seem to be a moot point!

        I’m reading each blog from newest to oldest. So I’ve yet to get to the blog you mentioned. Looking forward to it.

        Sent from Jacquie’s iPhone


      • Jacqueline Nevinger says:

        And that we need to be responsible for our part of fulfilling the First Saturdays and stop pointing at what others have not done! Especially when heaven said it was!

        Sent from Jacquie’s iPhone


  15. MM Bev says:

    Quoting from the book, “Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words”, page 204.
    “Sister Lucia personally confirmed that this solemn and universal act of consecration corresponded to what Our Lady wished (“Sim, esta feita, tai corno Nossa Senhora a pediu, desde o dia 25 de Marco de 1984″: Yes, it has been done just as Our Lady asked, on 25 March 1984”. Letter of 8 November 1989) Hence any further discussion or request is without basis.

    I have about sixteen books on Fatima, and they are not currently arranged together. While I have found some, I cannot locate all of them tonight. I do have a book in which Sister Lucia describes the apparition of Our Lady to her in which she is told by Our Lady that the consecration has been accepted. However, I am done hunting for tonight. This should provide satisfaction for anyone who needs concrete proof of the acceptance of the Consecration by Saint John Paul, the Great, on March 25, 1984. Any denial of this fact would mean that both Sister Lucia and Saint John Paul II are liars. I find this nonsense when one considers that as a ten year old child Lucia was willing to accept death (and a rather unpleasant one) rather than lie. (I believe that by the time of her death, she had told this in four letters, and you can read about that in the above referenced book, following after page 204.)

    I do accept the fact that there are people, even highly placed in the Church, who insist that the Consecration has not been done. Alas, some people, even confronted with irrefutable proof, cannot accept anything except their own conclusions.

    If in reading in the future, I come across the passage item I mentioned of Our Lady’s apparition to Sister Lucia following the actual Consecration, I will return here and include the book and page reference.


  16. Margaret says:

    I wonder if Charlie, Peter B. or any kind readers have recommendations for sound, current books on Fatima. Is there anything newer/better/more accurate than the 2010 book by Fr. Andrew Apostoli titled, “Fatima for Today: the Urgent Marian Message of Hope”. Thanks for any guidance.


  17. vta says:

    Let’s say a member of your family had wandered into a sinful, self-destructive lifestyle. Let’s say some heavenly personage spoke to you telling you to consecrate that person to the Immaculate Heart of My. Would you instead consecrate your whole family, the logic being that that person “afterall, is a member of my family. It’s the same thing”? I don’t think so. Political circumstances aside, the consecration of Russia was simply not done as requested.

    Good post! Peter B’s posts on the Mother of God site are well worth reading!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s