2. THE PROPHECIES: It warned of two things: Annihilation of nations if Russia isnt consecrated, and future apostasy in the Roman Catholic Church, in a secret (The Third Secret).
The messages regarding the consecration of Russia are discussed in the first part of this section, and the book's claims (and witnesses to the claim) that the 3rd secret was about apostasy in the Church are discussed in the 2nd part.
CLAIM #2 God Himself has decreed that Russia be consecrated, and that the world be devoted to the Catholic faith through devotion to the Immaculate Heart
Evidence: Message #2 clearly states: "..To save them (sinners from hell) God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart..To prevent this (punishment of the world for its crimes), I (Mary) shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart."
My comment: The 2nd message, written over 20 years after the apparitions, does clearly indicate a call for a consecration of Russia and devotion, and a warning if it does not happen. Whether the original apparations specifically mentioned Russia cannot be known.
HERE IS A TIMETABLE AND DISCUSSION OF THE REQUESTS TO CONSECRATE RUSSIA
Heres summary of the main events regarding Consecration, and some commentary:
1917 Sister Lucia received the message which included the instruction: "I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart."
1929 Ch 3 says that Sister Lucia had another apparition 1929, 12 years later when she was around 22, which the Church has declared worthy of belief also: "Late at night (she was tired) she saw a luminated cross with a man at the top, Christ on it, blood dropping into the chalice which had a large host on it. Mary under the rt. side, holding her immaculate heart, and the words Grace and Mercy under the left side. Sister Lucia understood it to be the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity. Then the Lady spoke and basically said now is the time to consecrate with all the bishops of the world, Russia. God requests this."
1931 Christ speaks to Sister Lucia concerning the Consecration of Russia: "Make it known to My ministers given that they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, like him they will follow him into misfortune."
1936 pg 264, Our Lord speaks again to Sister Lucia and tells her that the conversion of Russia will occur only when that nation is solemnly and publicly consecrated to the Immaculate Heart by the Pope together with all the bishops.
1941 Sister Lucia wrote down the 2nd Message of 1917 for the first time.
1942 Pope Pius XII consecrated the world, not Russia, to the Immaculate Heart.
1946 pg 113, Thomas Walsh, in Our Lady of Fatima, wrote that Sister Lucia said "What our Lady wants is that the Pope and all the bishops in the world shall consecrate Russia to Her Immaculate Heart on one special day"
1952 pg 113, Mary appeared to Sister Lucia again and said "Make it known to the Holy father that I am always awaiting the consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart"
1952, pg 265 Pope Pius XII consecrates Russia specifically, but he is not joined by all the catholic bishops of the world because he did not ask them to participate, not having been advised that this was necessary
1958 ch 4 Sister Lucia is quoted as saying She (Mary) said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the world if we do not obtain beforehand the conversion of that poor nation
1964 Pope Pius consecrates the world again during the closing ceremonies of the third session of the 2nd Vatican Council
1967 p269, Sister Lucias Memoirs are published, in which she reveals Our Ladys 1929 request for the consecration of Russia
1982, one day before the 1982 world consecration, the Vaticans own LOsservatore Romano published an interview with Sister Lucia. In response to whether Our Lady had ever spoken about the Consecration of the world Sister Lucia said "No..Never. At the Cova da Iria in 1917 Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia..in 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the Consecration of that country."
1982 pg 92. The Pope consecrated the whole world to the Immaculate Heart. The bishops didnt participate.
1982 pg 272 In LOsservatore Romano, the Holy Father explains why he did not specifically consecrate Russia, declaring that he had tried to do everything possible in the concrete circumstances.
1983, pg 114 quotes Sister Lucia from the book Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph: "In the act of offering of May 13, 1982, Russia did not appear as being the object of the consecration. And each bishop did not organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and Consecration of Russia. Pope John Paul II simply renewed the consecration of the world executed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942. From this consecration we can expect some benefits, but not the conversion of Russia."
1984 The Pope again consecrated the whole world to the Immaculate Heart. In neither case had the bishops of the world participated. He includes the phrase "Enlighten especially the peoples of which You Yourself are awaiting our consecration and confiding", which are reported in the LOsservatore Romano.
1985 pg 116, Sister Lucia told Sol de Fatima There was no participation of all the bishops, and there was no mention of Russia (Was it done as requested?) No. Many bishops attached no importance to this act
1986, Even Father Rene Laurentin, a comrade of the progressivists, admitted in 1986 that "...Sister Lucia seems to think that the consecration has not been made as Our Lady wanted it."
July, 1989 Father Messias Coelho reveals that Sister Lucia has received instructions from the Vatican to say that the Consecration of Russia was accomplished in the ceremony of March 25, 1984. After this various witnesses Including it is claimed Sister Lucia herself began to repudiate their own prior statements. One such witness is Sister Lucias cousin, Maria do Fetal, who contrary to prior testimony now says that Sister Lucia believes the 1984 consecration of the world satisfied Our Lady of Fatimas request
Nov, 1989 Vatican claims to have a letter from Sister Lucia that says the consecration was done. The letter is suspicious. This is the same year Russia is considered to have collapsed.
Jan 1990, Maria do Fetal says her prior reports that Sister Lucia said the Consecration wasnt in conformity was "inventing"
2000 Vatican interviews Sister Lucia, states that the Carmelite community has rejected the petition forms from Father Gruners apostate
2000 Inside the Vatican reveals that a Cardinal described as one of the Popes closest advisors admits that "His Holiness has been counseled not to make mention of Russia in any consecration ceremony because this would offend the Russian Orthodox."
Nov, 2002 Msg Bertone reports that Sister Lucia said in an interview that the 1984 consecration of the world sufficed for a consecration of Russia
my comments: The book doesnt address any of the following points, which relate to the authenticity of the requests revealed by Sister Lucia to consecrate Russia:
1. Clearly, there are consistent messages from Sister Lucia that she has been told by Mary (and once Jesus) that Russia needs to be consecrated. However, the specifics changed over time a little bit:
First, in 1917 Mary stated I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to My Immaculate Heart
In 1929 the language with all the bishops of the world is added.
In 1936 the language solemnly and publicly is added
In 1983 pg 114, Sister Lucia is quoted in Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph the each bishop is to organize in his own diocese a public and solemn ceremony of reparation and consecration
Over time, the message seemed to change, if even a little. One could say that the 1917 was a promise to return and give further instruction, which occurred in 1929. This is what Sister Lucia indicates in 1982 in the LOsservatore Romano. Still, even further language seems to have been added in 1936. The language in 1983 seems to include even further detail. It seems unlikely to me that Mary would not have given all of the instructions clearly the first time in 1917 or at least in 1929. The inconsistency to some extent hurts the credibility of the messages. How can the Church exactly fulfill the request if it keeps changing, if even so slightly?
2. I might point out that the language in 2nd message is "I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia.., and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturdays."
I shall come to ask could mean I am asking, but in 1982 Sister Lucia was quoted as saying that they meant She would return to ask, and that in 1929 She did that when She said now is the time to consecrate. That makes sense, but when did Mary come back to ask for the Communion of Reparations? There is no record that she did. Actually, she appeared to request it in May, 1917 a month before the 2nd Message. So with regard to two different objects of I shall come to ask that are in the same sentence, one request required a future visit but the other didnt. This too seems inconsistent.
3. The Church appears to have tried to respond to the requests on several occasions. The book only mentions it once (I think) on pg 265, but the Church DID ACTUALLY CONSECRATE RUSSIA BY NAME IN 1952. This is a critical point because it shows that the Church DID try to honor the request. However, the book indicates that the Pope had not been advised that the bishops of the world had to join him. Why? My guess is because the only indication that the Pope had was from the message Sister Lucia wrote down in 1941, from 1917, which didnt say anything about bishops. Why didnt someone set him straight beforehand? It had been 23 years since the apparition of 1929. Why didnt Mary tell Sister Lucia that the Pope needed clarification? Why didnt Mary just appear to the Pope? The biggest question I have is why would the Church and the world have to suffer tremendously all because of a misunderstanding about the request? Why would God let that happen? IF I have the facts straight, this just doesnt seem fair. If the message really had come from Mary, I would have expected that the specific requests to include bishops would have somehow made it to the Pope correctly by the time he tried to honor the request, with all proper intentions.
4. The book says on pg 22 "Indeed the Virgins prophecy of the spread of Russias errors throughout the world was already being fulfilled with relentless exactitude." My comment: The 2nd secret was not even revealed until 1941, but this quote is talking about the spread of Russia from 1917 onward, and implies that it happened because Russia wasnt consecrated. However, why should the world have suffered when no one even knew that the request to consecrate had been made until 1941? Why not relieve the suffering by requesting an immediate consecration in 1929 instead of waiting another 12 years?
5. pg 113 quote by Our Lady "Without the consecration, Russia will not be able to convert, nor will the world have peace." It seems a little odd to condition the conversion of Russia on its consecration. The Roman Catholic priest Fr Martindale somewhat skeptically pointed out that "The conversion of the world was not unconditionally attached to Calvary itself!"(13) In other words, didnt Christ do all that was necessary to convert people? Why is consecration necessary?
(13) http:/www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/marian_apparitions.htm
6. The books tells how bad Russias situation, rampant abortion, alcoholism, child porn, Catholics comprise less that one half of 1%. It says this is evidence that Russia was not consecrated. This assumes that message is authentic in the first place. If it isnt authentic then Russias problems would likely continue whether or not Russia is consecrated. Assuming it is an authentic message, one could conclude that Russia wasnt consecrated because the conversion hasnt occurred. However, in the 1982 letter Sister Lucia herself indicated that the Church was making strides in the right direction and that world consecration would help, yet the situation doesnt seem any better at all--it seems much worse, as the book pointed out. Does that mean Sister Lucia was wrong to say things were better? The book cant have it both ways. Either it believes Sister Lucia has the inside track to the messages and their implications or it doesnt. Another thought is that conversion can take time. Maybe in another 10-20 years Russia will have turned the corner. To me, this point is worth watching, but that it is not strong evidence for the reasons mentioned.
SUMMARY:
CLAIM #2 God Himself has decreed that Russia be consecrated, and that the world be devoted to the Catholic faith through devotion to the Immaculate Heart
CONCLUSIONS:
Because there are inconsistencies related to the message to consecrate Russia, and the fact that changes occurred over a number of decades, even while the Church apparantly did make some attempt to honor the requests--especially in 1952--the authenticity of the messages is somewhat suspect. The book devotes a lot of time discussing whether the Church honored the requests, but it seems to gloss over the issue of the requests changing as the years went by. This issue, too, should be known by a person looking for a balanced presentation of the facts.
CLAIM #14 The Third Secret has already been revealed by numerous witnesses who attest to it having to do with apostasy in the Church
my comment: We need to define apostasy clearly: Apostasy refers to the desertion of ones religion through the changing of principles.
Evidence: The book says on pg 167 The testimony of every single witness who has spoken on the question points to only one conclusion: "the missing part of the Third Secret of Fatima foretells a catastrophic loss of faith and discipline in the human element of the Church--that is, in short, a great apostasy."
Before getting to the witnesses, my comment: There is no denying that the evidence is strong that a number of people, even those at high levels, and even perhaps Sister Lucia herself, were very bothered by the changes going on in the Church, even before 1960. Many interpreted changes in the church as apostasy. Sister Lucia herself held strong traditionalist views. She is on record as saying that one could go to hell for all eternity for missing Mass on Sunday (17). However, it is a mistake to assume that a belief that apostasy threatened the Church proves or is even any evidence that it is foretold in the Third Secret. The witnesses need to show such a link between this belief and the actual third secret for it to have any credibility.
(17) Vision of Fatima, Monsignor Finbar Ryan, 1939
Now, to the witnesses,
1. Pope Pius Xii p 167 "I am worried by the Blessed Virgins messages to Sister Lucia of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul."
my comment: The book makes a critical point on pg 34. It says the Pope Pius XII (future at that time) was Speaking even before Sister Lucia had committed the Third Secret to paper. Therefore, he isnt a witness to what is in the Third Secret. One could see it as prophetic and by divine insight a witness to the content, but that is not necessary. In the same quote the Pope said I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. So, what the Pope saw as apostasy was threatening the Church then. Note also, that the Pope doesnt say that Mary says that the Church will undergo apostasy--instead he says that Mary is giving a divine warning against apostasy. The book says on pg 34 that The prediction would be utterly senseless if it had been based on the first two parts of the Great Secret. I disagree. The 2nd part clearly talks about the threat of communism in the world, and the clear implication is that it threatens the Church also. It is not hard to see how the future Pope could equate the threats he sees around him to the threats to the Church in the messages of Fatima, since they have a common source: NEW PHILOSOPHY. From this perspective, I think his comments need not be seen as a prophecy, but can very reasonably be seen as his interpretation of the 2nd message in light of what he was seeing taking place in the Church at that time (in the 1930s). It need not be considered a prophecy of what was contained in the unrevealed Third Secret at all.
2. Father Joseph Schwiebh. The book says that he was entrusted by Pope Pius XII with a secret mission: to interrogate Sister Lucia about the Third Secret. This he did at the Carmel of Coimbra on September 2, 1952. Upon his return (he)...said to a colleague the following day: "I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved."
my comments: Why doesnt the book give the name of the person he said it to? A source on the web says it was to a relative, Father Cyrille Karel Kozina. This really could use some supporting documentation since it is such a critical piece of information. Something doesnt sound right. "I cannot reveal anything." Why not? Obviously he is making it sound like Sister Lucia revealed some things and then told him keep it a secret. Does this make any sense? Also, even though he says he cannot reveal anything, he did reveal things. That seems a bit inconsistent. All the more reason for having clearer documentation. Third, Father Alonso has said that Pope Pius XII did not open and read the message. What is absolutely false is a rumor that was already current in 1957, that Pope Pius XII did read the letter and that he wept because of the terrible things said in it. Then, on the next page he says that is is now known that Pope Pius XII did not read the text(18) It doesnt make sense that he would send someone else to find out about a secret which he later decides to not even read. Especially, if it talked of apostasy, which we have already seen was something that did greatly concern him. This witness testimony has some serious flaws.
(18) The Secret of Fatima, 1979, Father Alonso, pgs 49-50
3. Father Feuntes -- interview of Sister Lucia (pg 168)--very strong words of apostasy in 1957. She is quoted as saying "This is the Third part of the Message of Our Lady which will remain Secret until 1960.....The devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Virgin...The devil wishes to take possession of consecrated (religious and priestly) souls. The Vatican disputed the authenticity of it a few years later, but Father Alonso reported publicly (pg 269) in 1975 that this interview was an accurate report of Sister Lucias statements."
my comment: This interview has problems. First, Father Alonso pointed out that the interview was mis-reported throughout the world: "Father Fuentes text is more complicated, and it was immediately circulated around the world in thousands and thousands of different versions, all provoking countless states of alarm. and When the text was printed in other periodicals of popular piety, it was drastically changed, to the point of being utterly deformed"(19) The book doesnt say anything about these distortions, nor Father Alonsos comments about them. The book makes it sound like the Vatican was covering up the truth that Sister Lucia let slip out. It is not hard to see that the Vatican was trying to put an end to all of the wild distortions that Father Alonso mentions. To this end, the book misrepresented the truth about the Vatican response.
There are three other issues related to the quotes in the book by this witness:
1. Does the book quote the authentic version?
The answer is NO. Father Alonso reprints the authentic version in his book, which is NOT the same as the books. While it does include the sentence about the devil: "He wants to get hold of consecrated souls", it doesnt say this is the Third Secret. This is a big difference between the authentic interview and the one printed in the book, which we can only conclude is not authentic. The book misled the reader again.
2. What does the authentic version say?
There is no link between the Third Secret and words of apostasy in the authentic interview. The authentic interview does include "God is going to punish the world, and very soon...In less than two years 1960 will be here" These statements are very consistent with the devastation shown in the vision revealed in 2000, and while they can be considered a warning about the punishment of apostacy, that seems like a poor interpretation.
3. What are some views Sister Lucia has expressed regarding apostasy in general?
Regarding Sister Lucias views on apostasy, Father Alonso writes: "Lucia has several times spoken of the deficiencies of priests and the religious. With regard to bishops, however, she gives proof of exquisite delicacy, saying for example: On account of all the sacrifice and effort of the bishops for the promotion of the cult and glory of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and because they directly represent Our Lord, I have for all of them a great esteem, love and veneration." (20) So, while she had concerns about things going on in the Church, this quote doesnt support the idea that Sister Lucia foresaw apostasy in the upper hierarchy of the Church. If anything it weakens that viewpoint.
(19) The Secret of Fatima, pg108, pg111
(20), pg80
4. Father Alonso--deduces apostasy from the Portugal sentence in message 2. "Perhaps it even refers to the failures of the upper hierarchy of the Church. For that matter, none of this is foreign to the communications Sister has had on the subject."
my comment: This could reflect his interpretations and his alone. He doesnt supply a quote with regard to the communications Sister Lucia has had on the subject, although as shown in #3 above clearly apostasy at some levels was a concern to Sister Lucia. However, his quote does not show a link between concerns Sister Lucia may have had about apostasy and the third secret. Sister Lucia could feel like the upper hierarchy of the Church was failing completely independent of the 3rd Secret. There needs to be a clear tie-in between this viewpoint and the 3rd Secret. We must remember that there were many people other than Sister Lucia who were concerned about changes and new philosophies entering the church in the years preceeding Vatican II.
Father Alonso also wrote two very telling things:
1. "It must be repeated and emphasized that Sister Lucia has never spoken to anyone about the Secret"(21) This is a critical quote. It clearly indicates that she must NOT have spoken to Father Joseph Schweib or Father Fuentes in a way that revealed the contents. This quote directly discredits some of the witnesses in the book.
2. And, Father Alonso agrees with the following quote by a Carmelite mother prioress: "The mission of Sister Lucia of the Immaculate Heart was to transmit Our Ladys message. She has done this magnificently. Do not ask her, however, to interpret what she has written or said. Ask this of the theologians, ask the hierarchy and the apostles of Fatima, whom the Holy Spirit raises up when and where He wills." (22)
These two quotes show that Father Alonsos interpretation is in no way an account of Sister Lucias revelation of the contents of the 3rd Secret, as it clearly is not based on discussions with Sister Lucia about the secret, and that he doesnt believe that Sister Lucia herself is the one to interpret it anyway. Clearly, Father Alonsos' interpretation is his own, apparantly with the only real evidence being the Portugal sentence.
(21) The Secret of Fatima, pg 116
(22) ibid pg 89
THE PORTUGAL SENTENCE: Now is a good time to discuss the Portugal sentence:
First, of this statement the book says: "We also have Sister Lucias own testimony that the Third Secret contains Our Ladys actual words." The book says that when Sister Lucia said in 1943 (about the Third Secret) that in a certain manner she had said it she was clearly talking about the Portugal sentence. I believe it is very reasonable to interpret her comment to referring to the 2nd part of the message, and not the Portugal sentence. The second message talks about war, persecutions against the Church, the good will be martyred, the Holy father will have much to suffer, various nations will be annihilated. All of these are depicted in the revealed vision in 2000. For that reason when Sister Lucia said that in a certain manner she had said it she could have been talking about those details revealed in the 2nd message which were detailed further in the frightening vision.
The book prefers, however, to see it differently. The book sees the phrase "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved; etc" as an indication that the Third Secret talks about the loss of dogma. On pg 172 it says "What would be the point of Our Lady mentioning the preservation of dogma in Portugal if not to warn us that dogma was not going to be preserved elsewhere in the Church? And, as we have earlier suggested, the elsewhere is undoubtedly described in the words comprised within Sister Lucias etc." It also says on pg 151 that "the words introduce a new, and incomplete, thought into the Secret of Fatima. The phrase suggests, as every reputable Fatima scholar has concluded, that there is more to follow and that the etc. is but a placeholder for the third part of the secret"
Well, I think we have to be very careful here. The book continuously shows the phrase as "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc. ," which reads as though the Lady actually spoke the word etc. However, the book misrepresents, perhaps by oversight, the actual sentence. In Sister Lucias fourth memoir, the sentence is written as follows: "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved; etc....Do not tell this to anybody...." In every place I noticed (at least 4), the book has no semicolon, or even a comma. Even if this misquote was an accident, it is once again misleading to the reader. In Sister Lucias original 4th memoir she used a semicolon. Semicolons show a greater break in thought than commas, which in turn show a greater break in thought than spaces. The semicolon very possibly indicates the end of that message. There is no need to conclude that the etc indicates that there is more to follow at all!
Sister Lucia lived in Portugal and the message took place in Portugal. She recorded several comments in the apparitions from Mary that related specifically to Sister Lucia, and the other two seers. It doesnt seem senseless at all to end the 2nd message, filled with warnings with basically reassuring the children that their own country would experience the period of peace just mentioned in the prior sentence. The addition of this sentence in the fourth memoir could indicate a new thought, but it is not supported by the way in which the etc is used. As we have seen, communications from Lucy tend to grow over time, so the addition of the Portugal sentence may just reflect this tendency to recall additional information over time. Since this has been her tendency one cant use the novelty of adding this sentence in the 4th memoir as a decisive argument for it having a deeper meaning. If Sister Lucia had meant for that phrase to be the beginning of the Third Secret, she should not have used a semicolon. Or, better yet, she should have started a new paragraph with that sentence. The fact that the Portugal sentence fits in very well as a conclusion to the 2nd message argues for it belonging with it.
As the book indicated, it is thought that the etc was a placeholder for the Third Secret. I agree with this interpretation, especially since in her 3rd memoir Sister Lucia strongly implied that all three secrets were revealed on July 13. That being the case, anything could have taken the place of the etc. Given the context, the vision could very well have filled the place of etc as easily as could the missing words. The book also says that the next command, Do not tell this to anybody was a command to not discuss the loss of dogma of faith. All we can really conclude is that it is a command for her not to tell the just revealed secret (held by etc...) to anybody.
Overall, I find it inconclusive. The book makes some good points, but uses false punctuation to further their point. However, there are some good arguments for it just being the concluding part of message #2 also.
5. Ratzinger -- in 1984 basically says it adds nothing to what is already in scripture, which includes the dangers threatening the faith and life of the Christian. He also says a reason it was still secret is to avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism.
my comment: There are many dangers threatening the faith that arent necessarily apostasy from within the Church. Communism is a threat to faith. Also, why tie the faith and lives together if it is just about apostasy? In the vision religious were martyred. Clearly whoever kills a believer is threatening their faith. A city in half ruins and a Pope murdered by soldiers can be interpreted with sensationalism. This quote by Ratzinger is not evidence that the 3rd Secret is about apostasy in the Church. It could be interpreted that way but doesnt have to be at all.
6. Bishop Amaral -- 3rd Bishop of Fatima, in a speech on Sep 10, 1984, he says "Its content concerns only our faith..the loss of faith of a continent is worse than the annihilation of a nation" CRC, 1997 quotes him in 1995. "before I asserted in Vienna (in 1984) that the Third Secret concerned only our faith and the loss of faith I had consulted Sister Lucia and first obtained her approval."
my comment: The same comments as above. This loss of faith of a continent doesnt mean apostasy at the top levels. The quote by CRC is questionable. First, why wasnt it published for 2 years? A lot can be changed or mis-remembered in 2 years. Second, CRC also claims to know that Pope John Paul 1 was murdered, and they claim to have the true secret of La Sallette. They are clearly fascinated with sensationalistic topics. This is a interesting quote by Bishop Amaral, but considering the lack of corroborating evidence (the Bishop is still alive--cant anyone else get a quote from him?), I consider this to be very questionable evidence.
7. Cardinal Oddi - 3/12/90 testimony alerting us to apostasy in the Church
my comment: As far as we know, he didnt read it. There are plenty of people who are staunch traditionalists that feel this way. It may reflect a bias on his part. Without a clear indication that Cardinal Oddi had read the secret prior to making this comment, he cant be considered a true witness.
8. Cardinal Ciappi -- he is quoted in the Periodical Catholic, March 2002, by a Professor Baumgartner as saying ""In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the church will begin at the top" Cardinal Ciappi was nothing less than Pope John Pauls IIs (the current Popes) own personal papal theologian"
my comments: This is potentially a meaningful quote, but much info is missing. First, exactly what was his relationship to the Pope? When did he say this? Who is Professor Baumgartner? Did he just take the quote out of context? Is the reporting source valid? Why cant we get a quote directly from the Cardinal? I couldnt find this periodical anywhere, even in a Catholic library. What we have is a second hand report from a periodical that is not widely read that quotes a man 6 years after his death! This evidence needs more support.
9. Father Valinho, sister Lucias nephew - in 2000 he expressed the view that the Third Secret predicts apostasy in the Church
my comment: He almost for sure didn't say that Sister Lucia told him that, or else the book would have indicated it. What is his source? If he can't reveal it, then it may be his own opinion. Here is a quote I found from him that was written in early 2000 that addresses the subject: "I have tried many times to ask Sister Lucia about the content of the third secret," said Fr. José Valinho, a Salesian priest and nephew of Sister Lucia, whom we have quoted many times in this series of articles on Fatima. "But each time, my aunt changed the subject. She has admitted some things explicitly, but she has never given any attention to the apocalyptic rumors found in some publications. To me she has always spoken optimistically about the future. She has always said that there is much evil in the world, that Satan is destroying many souls, but she always added that the goodness and mercy of God are stronger than any evil, and that they will triumph in the end."
Since Fr. Valinho meets his aunt two or three times a month, we asked him if he has formed his own opinion about the third part of the secret. "Yes," he replied, "I do have my own ideas, but they could be completely wrong. I believe that part of the secret regards the Church and its internal running; perhaps doctrinal difficulties, a crisis of unity, fragmentation, divisions. The part of my aunts writing which precedes the undisclosed part of the secret says: In Portugal, the principles of the faith will always be preserved. This sentence gives us an indication that the missing part could in some way be related to it. Therefore, in other parts of the Church, these principles could be shaken. But these are just suppositions. And I also think that, in the light of what has happened, the secret may well hint at the events surrounding the attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II in May 1981." (21) This clearly shows that he too is not a valid witness.
(23)http://www.mess-s-antonio.it/MSAHOME/ing/riviste/rivest/a2000/Mag/Art/fatima.htm
10. The book says that Sister Lucia has never corrected these kinds of testimonies, even though throughout her life she has not hesitated to correct those who misrepresented the contents of the Message of Fatima. The implication is that she knows they are right.
my comment: If you correct testimony, you may reveal something about the secret. It has been made clear in the testimony by a few of the witnesses that Sister Lucia did not discuss the secret. Period. Therefore, failure to correct conjecture by people is not a sign of anything. It just comes with the territory of silence. This is not a valid point.
11. Pope John Paul II, at the sermon at Fatima in 1982, and again in 2000. 1. asked if the Mother would keep silent when she sees the very bases of Her childrens salvation undermined
my comment: What is the context? He didnt mention the third secret. He could be talking about anything here--the temptation of evil in the world, for example. Or, he could be talking certain modernist attacks from outside. We must remember that the Pope is the one who believes the vision prophesied the assassination attempt. This is not a strong witness to the message.
11.2. He evokes Revelations 3 & 4 that talks about the dragon whose tail swept down a third of the stars of Heaven. Says this is usually interpreted to mean Satan will drag 1/3 of the clergy down.
my comments: He described the message of Fatima as a call to conversion, alerting humanity. He didnt say alerting to the Church, the faithful, or His people. And, he said The heavenly father awaits everyone with His merciful love. The context appears to be talking about mans plight, not the Church.
HERE ARE MY COMMENTS ON SOME OTHER POINTS:
1. The book suggests that since the Pope said things "in a somewhat hidden manner, that it seems likely that he was sending a signal to the more astute."
my comment: Why? Why doesnt he just out and say it? The book acts like the Pope is a puppet with no real voice--like he is scared about what he sees going on around him but is too weak or afraid to say anything. The book says Perhaps the Pope either does not know who they are or he does know but does not think he can speak out publicly and survive for long. What is this saying--that the Pope is risking the whole world in order to save his own life?! This is one of the weakest parts of the books arguments. It depicts the Pope as a Fatima believer, but also as unable to defend the real third secret. Yet, he clearly backed the part of the official Vatican commentary which dealt with the attack on the Popes life. To suggest that the Pope is too weak or scared to tell the truth just doesnt seem reasonable, especially for a Pope who is believed to be a genuinely devout person.
2. We should keep in mind that only two of these witnesses ever read the secret (the Pope and Ratzinger), and that Sister Lucia was apparently very tight lipped about its contents. If the book really wanted to make a stronger case they should interview the still-living Bishop Amaro and Cardinal Oddi about the very questionable quotes that they allegedly made.
3. TMF(the message of Fatima) uses Sister Lucias third memoir, which excludes the Portugal phrase. Calling the additions in the 4th memoir an annotation, when they are the Ladys words. The book sees this as an intentional attempt to remove the concept of apostasy from their commentary.
my comment: I agree that they should have addressed the issue since it is one of concern to many people. I think the book may be right that they did this to reduce any objections. However, as I concluded above, the idea that it doesnt add anything of significance is not without reasonable support, for reasons mentioned above. The Vatican does not need to answer to those who hold different viewpoints.
4. After the Vatican decided not to reveal the contents in 1960, the Cardinal of Lisbon said the following: "Our Lady has already drawn, therefore, a picture of contemporary events, with persecutions in the Soviet Union and the destruction of certain nations..Many are concerned about the revelation of the third part of the Secret of Fatima. They forget, however, that the essential message has already been given, and that is what we most need to know: that we are not to offend God and that we are to live in His grace." This sounds like the words of someone who is familiar with the contents of the secret. Why doesnt the book include this as a witness? What happened to their claim that every witness attested to apostasy? This can be attributed to an message of apostasy, but it seems to mesh better with the vision and its interpretation.
5. Father Alonso also quotes Cardinal Ottaviani--who did read the secret--as saying: "I, who have had the grace and the gift to read the text of the Secret--though I, too, am bound by the secret--I can say that all that is rumored about it is sheer fantasy." (24) Since the two big rumors since around 1960 were that it was about nuclear annihilation or about apostasy, it seems that this is strong evidence against either one of them. The book includes the first part of this quote on pg 28, but in place of the I can say that all that is rumored about it is sheer fantasy it chooses to put in "...." Obviously this is because the end of the quote actually hurts the point the book is trying to make.
(24) The Secret of Fatima, Fact and Legend, Joaquin Alonso, 1979, pg 50
6. Some believe that the Churchs attitude toward Fatima contrasts with the charge that the secret speaks of apostasy in the Church. According to Inside the Vatican, "If the secret contains a harsh judgement of the Church or the Second Vatican Council, Fatima scholars have argued, Popes Paul VI and John Paul II would not have espoused the whole philosophy of Fatima and visited the shrine in Portugal."(25)
(25) Inside the Vatican, June-July 2000, XII
7. Supposedly various people over the years read the secret. If it really was about apostasy, where are those people now? How many believable people are coming out and saying that the vision revealed in 2000 is not what they read?
8. The book claims that the letter on pgs 271-272, said to be from Sister Lucia to the Pope, reveals that there is a missing crucial phrase, which proves that this letter could not have been written to the Pope. The phrase is "the third part of the secret, that you are so anxious to know", which is in the original letter (shown at the bottom of the Vatican commentary), yet is removed from all of the official Vatican translations for the inclusion in the main part of the commentary. The book asks (pg 117) Why would His Holiness be so anxious to know what he had already read in 1981..or as early as 1978. The book concludes: Either the letter was not really written to the Pope, or there was something more to the Secret which the Pope really did not know as of May 12, 1982
First, clearly in the Vatican translations they modified the letter to exclude that phrase. Why would they do this? The most obvious reason is given in the book: "Clearly, the Vatican apparatus wanted to avoid a storm of questions about how the Pope could be anxious to know something he already knew." Ok. I think they are missing an important point: Namely, this is evidence that the letter was not forged or made up. If they had made it up, they likely would have had an original without those words in the first place, and they would not have made it so easy to discover the difference. The existence of this passage--which hurts the Vaticans credibility in some peoples eyes, actually can be seen as as evidence that in fact Sister Lucia wrote this letter--because if it was forged they wouldnt have included the phrase in the first place! Interestingly, the book doesnt seem to question whether Sister Lucia wrote it or not.
Why is this important? Because of this critical phrase: "The third part of the secret is a symbolic revelation." That is more important than who she wrote it to, or what the missing phrase was all about, because that phrase directly contradicts the idea that there are two texts. In addition, the letter doesnt talk about apostasy at the highest levels either. It refers back to the comments in the second part of the secret, about the suffering of the Holy Father and the religious. It says also that those events are conditioned by whether we accept or not what the Message itself asks of us: "If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.'"
This is the clearest explanation of what the third secret is all about that we have from any source, prior to the unrevealing in 2000, and it is in an appropriate letter-from Sister Lucia to the Pope himself.
The two objections the book raises about this letter are easily answered. First, why would Sister Lucia write that you are so anxious to know to the Pope, if he had already read it. The answer is not difficult. The wording indicates that the Pope had contacted her and asked some questions about the vision. This was a year after the assassination attempt. He likely was wanting to understand the vision better, since he did survive. Has it been fulfilled, or not? Would Russia be converted? Would more suffering occur? Etc. The whole paragraph from Sister Lucia is as follows (from the commentary, with the missing phrase added back in): "The third part of the secret, that you are so anxious to know, is a symbolic revelation, referring to this part of the Message, conditioned by whether we accept or not what the Message itself asks of us: If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.'.
Since we did not heed this appeal of the Message, we see that it has been fulfilled, Russia has invaded the world with her errors. And if we have not yet seen the complete fulfillment of the final part of this prophecy, we are going towards it little by little with great strides. If we do not reject the path of sin, hatred, revenge, injustice, violations of the rights of the human person, immorality and violence, etc."
The answer clearly indicates that the Pope was concerned with the interpretation of the vision, and not what was in the vision, or the interpretation of the unrevealed text. There is no need to conclude that this was intended for someone else. Even if it was (which I dont believe), the main points aren't changed.
The second problem the book finds with the passage is found in their question on pg 272: "Why would Sister Lucia tell Pope John Paul II in 1982 that the prophecy of the Third Secret was not yet fulfilled if the prophecy had already been fulfilled with the failed attempt on the Popes life on May 13, 1981?" My response is that the book is narrowly focusing in on the assassination attempt as the alleged fulfillment. That is only one aspect of what was warned! The final fulfillment was clearly stated early in the letter: "If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, etc.'." This is what Sister Lucia is referring to when she says we are going towards it little by little with great strides. One can certainly debate the accuracy of that statement, but that isnt the point. The point is that the books objections are easily refuted, and the context completely supports the refutation.
Unless Im missing something here, those who believe in the conspiracy theory put forward by the book would have to conclude not that this was meant for someone other than the Pope, and not that there was something more to the secret that the Pope didnt know as of May 12, 1982, but that Sister Lucia didnt write this letter! In order to conclude that they would have to believe that in a very cunning move the Vatican decided to first include and then remove the words that you are so anxious to know not for the reason of avoiding controversy over what that means, but for the reason that it would make it look like they didnt forge the original. They would have to believe that the Vatican figured that no one would suspect them of making up an original copy that they intended on modifying, so that it would be noticed and then used against them by people such as the authors of the book, to distract them from the most important issue--who the author is. I think that is highly unlikely. I think it is most reasonably an original letter from Sister Lucia, and that therefore it validates that the third part of the secret is a vision, and a vision only.
SUMMARY
CLAIM #14 The Third Secret has already been revealed by numerous witnesses
CONCLUSIONS:
There really arent any credible witnesses who clearly have said the Third Secret is about apostasy in the Church.
Preconceived ideas by some that the Church was undergoing an apostasy could have strongly influenced the witnesses to have formed an interpretation of the third secret which leaned heavily toward apostasy. Also, comments from Sister Lucia herself about tempted souls in the church could have led some to assume she was talking about the secret, but again there is no reason to link the two. The book doesnt bother to tell us that according to Father Alonso and Sister Lucias own nephew (two witnesses) Sister Lucia was very careful not to reveal the secret to anyone. This is attested to by how little Father Alonso seemed to know of it after performing extensive, exhaustive research on the archives, as well as his own statements about her silence. It is also attested to by her nephews admission that she told him nothing of the secret despite his asking her many times. Of those who we know HAVE seen the secret, NONE of them have come out and said it is about apostasy in the Church. One (Ottiavani) clearly said that all that is rumored about it issheer fantasy. All of these facts lead to the conclusion that evidence to support the theory that the secret is about apostasy in the Church is weak.
While it seems reasonable to expect a commentary from Mary on the vision provided, one can in retrospect see that message #2 applies very well as a commentary. The objections raised in the book to the letter from Sister Lucia to the Pope in May of 1982 are weak objections. This letter is not disputed to be from Sister Lucia. It seems very reasonable that it is. As such, it is powerful testimony as to what is contained in the Third Secret--a symbolic revelation of suffering of the Holy Father and other religious as a result of the Church allowing the spread of Russias errors, and not a portrayal of apostasy in the Church. THE TRUTH IS, the book provides weak witness testimony, and doesnt even discuss the evidence which contradicts the points the book makes. There is no compelling reason to believe the interpretation of apostasy. There is strong evidence that the truth is that the Third secret really is a symbolic revelation (vision) which further illustrates the ideas mentioned in the second message.
Lasik Los Angeles |
