By Timothy Fitzpatrick
Feb. 23, 2022 Anno Domini
Book Review
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema” ‑Galatians 1, 8
The Lady of Fatima and the Anti-Christ—The Fatima narrative in the light of Catholic truth (2018) is a book that will no doubt anger many Catholics, but if the book has any truth, as the Latin maxim says, “Let justice be done though the heavens should fall.” Some angels, along with Satan, did fall from the heavens and posed as the Virgin Mary at Fatima, Portugal in 1917 as part of a strategic apocalyptic setup—this is the theme of Bernal Diaz’s book.
He attempts to penetrate the official Vatican narrative of the so called apparition of the Virgin Mary (“Our Lady of Fatima”) at Fatima from multiple angles, including through the credibility of the primary witnesses (three young children); the contradictions in the apparitions’ messages and manifestations with traditional Catholic dogma; inconsistencies with the apparitions’ identities and behaviour; the similarities between physical phenomena at Fatima and demonic encounters; and the subversive effects from the cult of Fatima resulting in leading its members into paganism, Islam, and accepting a Crimean-based anti-Christ. (I’ve used apparitions in the plural form because we don’t know that it has been only one apparition to have appeared at Fatima multiple times. It could be multiple entities posing as the same person multiple times).
The latter angle may seem like a bit of a stretch as it pertains to Islam, especially for readers of Fitzinfo.net, but if one considers Islam as a subset of Jewish-Masonic world Noahidism, the author’s conclusions can work from, say, the Catholic worldview presented by Monsignor George F. Dillon in Grand Orient Freemasonry Unmasked (1885) or a similar one presented by La Civilta Cattolica in On the Jewish Question In Europe (1890). It seems that the Catholic Church has warned its flock more of the dangers of subversive Jewish behaviour than it has of Islamic. After all, it’s the “perfidious Jews” for whose salvation we ought to pray more so than the Islamic infidels, it seems. The passage of time has show Islam as the Jewish lackey that it is.
“Jews should rejoice at the fact that Christian Europe is losing its identity as a punishment for what it did to us for the hundreds of years we were in exile…. And now, Europe is losing its identity in favour of another people and another religion…. Even if we are in a major war with the region’s Arabs over the Land of Israel, Islam is still much better as a gentile culture than Christianity.” —Rabbi Baruch Efrati, 2012
To his credit, Diaz does touch on the Jewish-Islam partnership in the last chapter.
Nonetheless, Islam could play a larger role in the anti-Christ deception than we might imagine, as Diaz suggests. Perhaps it could be that Jewry loses control over Islam, and it takes on a bloody, revolutionary life of its own, like it has done many times in history. Furthermore, it’s becoming apparent that Judaism is nothing but repackaged ancient paganism with a special focus on racial identity. If Islam is a creation of Judaism, like many clerics believe, then all the more does it accomodate a push for revived paganism under the anti-Christ in the end days. If the devil chose “Our Lady of Fatima” to spread a false gospel—human and goddess co-redemption—because of its association with Mohammad’s daughter Fatimah and to facilitate the grotesque union of Catholicism with Islam, perhaps it explains why some Fatimists are so pro-Islam. According to these Islamophiles, like with the Judeophiles, Muslims are part of God’s plan of salvation. That’s quite an absurd conclusion, but it seems to be spreading among even so called traditional Catholics (E. Michael Jones anyone?). According to Diaz, it may be that Mary’s immaculate conception was hijacked and applied to Mohammad’s daughter Fatimah through the demon(s) posing as “our lady” at Fatima, Portugal as some sort of twisted mockery and blasphemy, and to blur the line between Catholicism and Islam. Fatimah is portrayed as a sinless goddess figure in the Islamic Quran.
“Satan appeared as Fatimah, the daughter of Mohamet, and called himself “Our lady of the Rosary” while others have given him the name “Our Lady of Fatima.” This last title implies a lady that is derived from Fatima. In other words, Satan came as the lady Fatima!”
A warning to readers who are already offended by the subject of this book but might be reading this review out of curiosity: the author makes even more controversy by taking sedevacantism (vacancy of the Holy See) back beyond it’s common starting year of 1958 to 1878, when the supposed last valid Pope, Pius IX, died. As extreme as this may sound, it’s a notion not entirely new in our time. Michael Hoffman’s 2017 book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome seems to suggest that the last valid pope was some time before the Medicis took over the papacy. But the reader should not let this dissuade them from reading this book, as it largely deals with the technical and spiritual problems with the cult of Fatima. Diaz fully references his sources—all 301 of them. It’s worth reading, even if you believe Fatima was authentic. I found it difficult to put the book down.
Diaz draws an interesting conclusion from the name of one of the key players in the Fatima narrative, Fatima’s child witness Jacinta, which he sees as a providential clue as to the origins of the apparitions (Jacinta is Portuguese for Hyacinth).
“Saint Hyacinth cut the pagan ‘sacred’ oak tree down. Some accounts say there were visible demons that left the tree. In any case, given the satanic nature of the apparitions at Fatima, it isn’t difficult to understand the symbolic nature of this girl being named after the saint who cut the “great oak” tree down. The tree the “lady” of Fatima appeared on was yet another oak tree. One of the children was named after Saint Hyacinth who fell the first tree. It was left to Jacinta to “fell” the tree of these Satanic apparitions. Jacinta failed in this task. It is now the turn of each individual soul to comprehend and help others see and understand the evil nature of these apparitions.”
Phenomena associated with classic demonic encounters that was present at the Fatima apparitions includes buzzing sounds (that of a bee or fly); lightning, clouds, glowing globes, chilling of the air, and negative physiological and/or psychological effects in humans.
“Beelzebub is the god of flies and of course he is a devil. Buzzing is the sound they heard at the apparitions,” writes Diaz. “Not the Virgin Mary, not ‘UFOS.’ Islam’s false prophet had a similar experience….”
As the Fatima apparition came down to the Earth like lightning, so, too, does Satan:
“And the seventy-two returned with joy, saying: Lord, the devils also are subject to us in thy name. And he said to them: I saw Satan like lightning falling from heaven.” (Luke 10:17-18)
These are just some of the many disturbing revelations discussed in the book.
The biggest red flag seems to be the out-of-character display by the Fatima apparition supposedly posing as Mary. Mary has not and never would elevate herself above her Son, as she seems to do at Fatima. Everything else comes unglued from there, as Diaz demonstrates.
“The teachings of Antipope Pius X about the Virgin Mary being Co-Redemptrix was in preparation for the loathing false teachings coming from Fatima that turns the honest seeker of Mary’s intercession into an act of repugnant adoration of a false goddess.”
Here’s a final pair of quotes from the book that relates to the Soviet-Israel, perestroika-deception focus of Fitzinfo.net:
“It is very possible that the beast of Fatima will react to a “consecration” from the antipope by pointing to a man in Crimea/Russia as the answer to world peace either then or in the future.”
…
“Based on the book of Daniel, Bishop Wamesley believes the Antichrist will come from ‘Crim Tartary,’ the modern day Crimea, which was annexed from the Ukraine and joined with Russia on March 18, 2014. This may be the case since the demon of Fatima directed our attention to Russia. To this very day the followers of the Fatima lie are anxiously watching Russia and waiting for the “consecration” so we may see her ‘conversion’.”
Crimea happens to be part of the region that was the old Jewish kingdom of Khazaria—the middlemen between the Eastern Orthodox kingdom of Bynzantium and Kievan-Rus “Third Rome” in the north.
You raise important points. Post the Revolution in the Church when the hierarchy was captured at the Vatican II Council, Catholics resolved to persevere in the faith and what the Church has always and everywhere taught should be very wary of any teaching that comes from the Novus Ordo hierarchy. Naturally they have had to run their own Fatima narrative but it is easily debunked by those who were making First Saturday Communions of reparation, those who were applying themselves to say the Rosary and understand this union of the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts as a fountainhead of graces for a time when the ordinary sacramental life of the Church would be compromised , even extinguished in much of the world and those who had read interviews with the Carmelite nun who was Sr Lucia of Fatima (bearing the imprimatur).
It is impossible to understand anything about the Fatima event of 1917 in the 21st century unless you have understood the Revolution in the Church, the Great Apostasy, the anti-papacy and the false Fatima narrative coming from the Vatican.
Well said. Thank you.
Linde, the author is not arguing that Vatican II put out a false narrative of Fatima. He is saying that Fatima itself is false. Just wanted to be clear on that.
Noted. This is Diaz’s core thesis. I think the better argument is that the entire Fatima event becomes clearer with each passing decade. The prophecies must be understood in terms of the Revolution in the Church. This is the authentic historical context. The Vatican narrative on Fatima complete with the Sister Lucia double and the bogus consecration etc reveals the layering of cognitive warfare here being implemented on the Catholic population and this , in itself, constitutes important evidence for the truth of the matter – which as I said is still in the outworking.
Man, this is a gut shot..
Gone read the book.
Thank you for your work!
MHFM did a a thorough expose on this, that the 3rd secret the Vatican put was fake, but that the apparition is scientifically undoubtedly real:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_hUdRKi4o
WRONG ON ALL ACCOUNTS THE SCHISMATICS GAVE WAY OVER 1000 YEARS
FATIMA IS REAL JEWISH PHONY “CATHOLIC AUTHORS”
THEY ARE ANTI CHRIST THEOLOGICAL MODERNIST ALSE ECUMENICAL ANTI NICEA QANTI TRENT ANTI TRUE ECUMENCIAL COUNCIAL P2 GO ZIO MARXIST BNAI BRITH SHITHEAD SPEW INAVASION
ITS LUTHERAN ORTHODOX AND HETERODOX JEWISH LEAD INAVDED ANTI ROMAN CATHOLIC MANIFEST HERETICS GALORE
THEY HATE S POPE PIUX THE 1TH POPE PIUS THE 12
AND POPE PIUS THE 9TH
TRADITION IN ACTION NOVUS ORDO WATCH AND BLUE ARMY PULVMACHER
NOVUS ORDO SECT
NDRANGHETA IS THE MUSCLE
AND IN ZOG LAND PROTESTANT ANTI CHRIST AMERICA ITS ABOUT PROTECTING THEM AND DAMNING ALL SOULS
Robin. Stop using all caps and please write in proper sentences.
Ditto.
You are a brave man, Fitzpatrick and I admire you for this. I’m not Catholic and from what I’ve read about did it sound… not Biblical to say it in a nice way.
Then read about it from Catholic sources.
If “once saved always saved”, as some protestants like to say (In case you are not protestant, please correct me), you should not be afraid of exposing yourself to Catholic content. I challenge you.
Brian Young from HighImpactFlix has been shilling hard and making excuses for Putin on Twitter recently.
Adam Green (even though I don’t like his take on Christianity) has been very critical of Russia to his credit.
A lot of shills are revealing themselves because of all this. Tucker Carlson made pathetic excuses for Putin. Viva Frei (David Freiheit had Russian apologist the Duran on his show for instance.
Thanks, QCpatriot. I don’t watch a lot of Fox material, but from what I have heard, most of Fox News does not sugarcoat Russia but Tucker Carlson does. Didn’t he recently interview Orban of Hungary and portray him as an authentic nationalist. Of course, Tucker wears the Kabbalah red string, so we know to which tribe he belongs. The Duran is a shameless Kremlin rag.
Also, I forgot to mention Lauren Southern who had a Russian apologist “geopolitical expert” on her YouTube channel recently to “explain what is going in Ukraine”. I think you already had a dossier on her. She met with Dugin. There’s pictures of her posing in Bolshevik regalia and she also made pro Stalin and pro “Nazbol” comments on Twitter. I think I saw this from your website actually. So she was well established as a shill before that but I think it’s still worth mentioning.
What is your opinion of F.William Engdahl ? He sure is a fan of the OBOR initiative.
Engdahl is a totally pro-Chinese and pro-Russian. To be fair, I would say that he does have sometimes legitimate criticism of the US side of things but he is a total Eurasianist shill who lived and taught as a professor in China and praised Red China, its leader Xi Jinping and the Belt and Road Initiative. There’s so many figures like him in the alt media who I used to listen to that I now take with either a big grain of salt or simply don’t trust at all/don’t listen to anymore. I woke up to the dangers of Eurasianism in 2016-2017 with the work of Brandon Martinez and Christopher Jon Bjerknes. I don’t agree 100% with these two on everything either nowadays but they were very ahead of their time when it comes to this subject: https://www.bitchute.com/video/eQF3hamJz03U/
The truth is that Russia is invading Ukraine to defend against an impending NATO invasion, aka the Jews who control NATO countries and Ukraine.
That’s a false narrative, Hans. NATO is already occupied by the Soviets and are being directed as controlled opposition to the Soviets, just like Ukraine. Russia is not defending itself against so called Western encroachment. Russia is making it official that they control Ukraine. Zelensky always been in Putin’s back pocket.
Timothy, it’s with a very heavy heart that I must say that I’m very disappointed and disturbed by your attitude towards Fatima. Clearly you misconstrued it and have taken it out of context. The guy of this book is yet another person out of all those who think that they know what Fatima is about yet they just twist it and demonstrate utter ignorance and error as to Fatima’s message. The message of Fatima can be summed up in the following:
1. Our Lady came to warn the world that if people do not stop offending God another, worse war will start. It did, it was WW2.
2. In ALL her apparitions she asked for repentance and praying of the Rosary. As a convert to Catholicism you might not appreciate the importance of praying the Rosary but I assure you it bears great importance. I suggest you go to the Dimond brothers’ website and click on the tab Holy Rosary and also Padre Pio.
3. Our Lady showed the 3 children hell when she outstreched the palms of her hands downwards. She said that most people go to hell because of the sins of the flesh which should be totally understandable given what godless age we live in where flesh dominates the actions of men. She asked that God wishes to save sinners by consecration to Her Immaculate Heart. Sister Lucia emphasized to Father Fuentes that Satan is engaged in a great battle with the Holy Virgin where one side will be victorious and other defeated. Everyone must choose sides, either with God or with Satan. Remember Revelation 12 which speaks of the great red dragon (Satan) waging war with the woman (that is none other than the Blessed Mother). Just as Jesus came to this world through Her, He wishes to come the second time through His Most Holy Mother. It’s His Will and if anybody understands the important role the Holy Mother of God plays in the plan of salvation, it’s not difficult to understand the Will of God and His mindset as to why through His Holy Mother. She is the new Eve also called Ave Maria which in reverse is Eve (Eva) for she completely reverses Eve’s sin.
4. She came to warn that Satan will succeed to the top of the Church, i.e. that he will really get to the papacy. That was achieved with Roncalli, the Freemason who usurped the Chair of St Peter with the fraudulent papal election. Go to thepopeinred.com for more on this.
5. She gave even more importance to the recitation of the Rosary, sister Lucia said that we can resolve any situation no matter how difficult with the recitation of the Rosary.
6. She asked for consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart to prevent Russia spreading atheistic communism throughout the world, fomenting wars and causing persecutions including within the Church and annihilating nations. The consecration was not done as required so Russia did spread her errors throughout the world. She also said that God will use Russia as an instrument of punishment for the sins of mankind. She said that Russia will be a scourge of the world.
7. She asked for reparation to Her Immaculate Heart to be done on the first 5 Saturdays for the ingratitude of men. What ingratitude is she speaking of? Towards her as Our Heavenly Mother who intercedes on our behalf to mitigate punishments and to appease God’s wrath. Reparation also for the blasphemies against her. Lucia specifically asked the Lord Jesus why was His Mother with 7 thorns around Her Immaculate Heart. He replied that these represent the 7 blasphemies against Her as a person including Her Immaculate Conception, Her perpetual virginity and all the dogmas concerning Her person.
8. She said that in the end Her Immaculate Heart will triumph. Note, she said IN THE END. After all the cataclysm, Her Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Era of Peace will begin and as many Catholic Saints have prophesied Russia will be converted. It is here at this point which is your stumbling block. You think that this refers to now and therefore must be satanic. No! And bear in mind, that Satan is a copycat of God and always mimicks important passages and symbolism but distorts it according to his nature. Thus this supposed merger of Catholicism and Orthodoxy gives a false impression that it refers to Our Lady’s message of Russia’s conversion. That’s NOT the case at all because the merger is done between two false factions within those Churches. It is not true Catholicism that is uniting with Orthodoxy that is also in the hands of Communists. And this false Counter-Catholicism is uniting not only with Orthodoxy but with all faiths, pagans and alike. That must NOT be in any way ascribed to the message of Fatima.
9.She also asked that we should always be willing to perform acts of sacrifice in reparation for sins. That constitutes crosses and sufferings that God would send our way. When we accept them, we mitigate the effects of sins upon the world. It should be done in the spirit of humility and self-denial.
Do you realize that when you attack the message of Fatima you are following in the footsteps of Protestants and even the Orthodox and other non-Catholics who call Fatima the sign from Satan?… Do you realize that it was Tom Horn who wrote books and gave speeches about Mary’s apparition and especially Fatima but he also attacked Lourdes from 19th century… It was Chris Putman, his colleague who made that false correlation between Fatima and Mohamed’s daughter. Grief, Satan is really working overtime making up fanciful stories that would destroy the authentic message of these important apparitions. Also this author Bernal Diaz has no idea what he’s talking about when he calls pope Pius X an antipope. Pius X was a saintly pope who was well aware of the modernists, infiltrators and judeo-masonry trying to worm their way in the Church and he fought valiantly like a true warrior of Christ and His vicar. I suggest you visit thepopeinred.com and study the whole thing deeper, I also suggest Dimond brothers’ video on the Third Secret of Fatima. Also Father Luigi Villa’s Chiesa Viva’s publications. Also watch David Dionisi’s 2 videos: 1. Akita and Fatima Secret, 2. The Secret of Nagasaki (why the Brotherhood of Death targeted Nagasaki for destruction with the atomic bomb). Also read the testimony of the Jesuit priests who survived that blast completely unscathed yet being almost within the epicenter of the blast. When they were asked how it’s possible that they survived it, they said that they lived their lives according to the message of Fatima. Now, I ask you, do you really think that if it was from Satan and these priests were just deceived, God would have spared them even though he didn’t spare so many around them? Please reconsider you attitude towards the TRUE message of Fatima. I pray that Our Holy Mother gives you grace to meditate upon these points and take them to your heart. I really and sincerely pray for that.
PS: There is a correlation between Our Lady of Good Success from the 17th century in Ecuador prophesying about the crisis in the Church and the rule of Satan in the world through Freemasonry. Then Our Lady of La Salette from France prophesying that Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist. And then it links to Our Lady of Fatima, it also continues with Our Lady of Akito in Japan which was very supressed as it reinforces the message of Fatima. I also suggest that you listen to Marian Therese Horvat who understands the connection between Our Lady of Good Success from Ecuador and Our Lady of Fatima in Portugal. May you be given the grace to see Fatima in its true light which it deserves to be seen in and understood.
Christine,
Actually, “she” seemed more concerned with those offending her. God, Christ, etc. are hardly mentioned at all.
She asked the children to sacrifice themselves for sinners, which is contrary to Christ. I’ve prayed the Rosary.
To say that you cannot know Christ without first coming through His mother is not Catholic teaching, even though it might have been suggested extra cathedram. The Scriptures themselves say there is no mediator but Christ. Mary cannot be a mediatrix. This is more goddess infiltration of the Vatican. Mary cannot reverse sin, only Christ can.
I believe there are older Catholic prophecies that suggest the same thing, so there would be nothing unique in this prediction.
There are many other prayers in the Church. Just because the apparition stressed this one does not authenticate it as a valid Marian apparition. The devil has to tell some truth to make his lies believable.
Why would she not say consecrate Russia to her Son, Jesus Christ instead? Mary of Scripture always exercised humility and always turned things back around to her Son. This statement is out of character for the real Mary.
By the time Lucia wrote this down, it was well after Soviet Communism was established. That’s suspicious, at the very least.
Again, this is completely out of character for Mary to say something like this. Reparations are owed to God alone, not Mary. I think Mary would be more concerned with ingratitude to God rather than to herself. This statement is unreasonable. Blasphemies are committed against God alone, not Mary. More unreasonableness.
It’s God who triumphs in the end. Christ achieved triumph at the cross. Does God have an identity problem that He can’t decide between who triumphs, He or Mary? There is no guarantee of Russia converting to Catholicism and certainly no sign of it happening in our day. You can admit that the counter-Church is merging with Orthodoxy but at the same time, you can’t admit that the counter Church created and legitimized the Fatima apparition. That’s ironic.
Where is it taught in the Church that we make sacrifice in reparation for sins to Mary?
Do you realize that just because a Protestant might have said it first doesn’t mean it isn’t true using Catholic reasoning?
The only authentic message we should concern ourselves with should be the simple Gospel of Jesus Christ. What more is needed? And how can you say that Diaz knows not what he speaks concerning antipopes when a Novus Ordo parishioner would say the same about you calling John Paul II an antipope? You see the hypocrisy in this statement?
The Third Secret nonsense is more misdirection to lure Catholics into private revelation. Christ’s Gospel is truth revealed, not truth concealed.
I think if Catholics’ faith is shaken by this theory of Fatima being a Satanic deception, they have bigger problems than the validity of apparitions. Fatima and Marian excesses alike do a great job of keeping potential converts away, especially Protestants. And they distort true reverence of Mary among Catholics, possibly putting their souls at grave risk.
Again Timothy, you take the words out of context and twist them. You ask me if I don’t see hypocrisy in the statement about Diaz’s accusation of Pius X being an anti-pope comparing it to the Novus Ordo crowd. Can you not see a stark difference? Pius X wasn’t teaching heresies as John Paul II was but instead fought valiantly against them and those who tried to get a foothold within the Church and propagate them. Novus Ordo crowd has accepted a new faith and a New “Church”, a church of man not of God established by the Lord Jesus Christ with the apostles. Therefore those who have fallen away from the established Faith and the Church in favour of the utter novelties that run contrary to not only the Catholic Faith but Christendom at large as it merges the world with the church and all pagan religions into one unit, it’s that spirit of Aggiornamento, syncretism with the spirit of the world, that those who have accepted that spirit and its teachings are already apostates even though they still carry the name Catholic which is a misnomer. To then put John Paul II who by his actions and teachings was a manifest heretic and therefore an antipope on a par with Pius X is (well I don’t even have the right words to express it). At best it could be called no discernment, at worst I’d rather hold my tongue. You also took out of context that passage where I speak about acceptance of crosses and sufferings in reparation for sins which then mitigates the effects they have upon the world. I made it very clear that the acceptance of the crosses and sufferings is in reparation for sins not to Mary. The reparation to the Immaculate Heart is a separate matter which is a devotion of first 5 Saturdays. I also explained the reason. Our Lady did put emphasis on the offences committed against God. It wasn’t centered all around her. All the other points you make are points that I have heard Orthodox raise against the Fatima apparition. It seems that orthodoxy as practiced in the Eastern Orthodox communities still has a massive influence on your views and the faith. There are so many points that you just misconstrued, for instance saying that Mary doesn’t reverse sins, only Christ does. Indeed, the Lord Jesus Christ is the one who atoned for sins and paid the price, He is the Redeemer of the world, the Lamb of God who bears sins of mankind. What I did say though was that Mary is called within the Catholic Church the new Eve, Ave Maria, Ave being the reverse of Eva, Eve as she reversed Eve’s sin. You cannot comprehend the significance of the original sin. Jesus is new Adam, His Holy Mother is new Eve. There was a reason why Jesus came through Her. It all bears a great significance. Also, I did explain about the book of Revelation about woman fighting with the dragon, Satan, and I did say that it refers to Mary but you seem to bypass that and instead misconstrue it once again. And many other points which you raised in refutation which you took out of context, misconstrued them and clearly didn’t understand my points nor are you willing to. You are just fixated on your own stance. Be that as it may. Fatima has been approved as a valid apparition. You argue that Novus Ordo validates it as well. Not really. They kind of pretended to do so because they needed to pretend that they are legitimate popes but in reality it exposes them. John XIII didn’t want anything to do with Fatima. He didn’t want to publish the 3rd secret as it incriminates him. John Paul II was a better actor and so he pulled a fast one on the duped people by applying the 3rd secret to his assassination attempt and the nuclear threat which is not at all the case. Bergoglio as well as John Paul II desecrated the shrine of Fatima, Bergoglio more so. They are actors so they pretend, Bergoglio is far worse than his predecessors and in pretending they expose themselves in their true colors and their true attitude towards Fatima. Therefore your argument is unjustified regarding Novus Ordo’s supposed endorsement of Fatima. It’s all a pretense to continue the charade of their illegitimate papacy and the usurpation of the Church. There really was false sister Lucy. I did tell you to watch The Third Secret of Fatima by Dimond brothers. It’s quite an old video. It explains a lot of important points. But like I said, you are fixated in your own way and the points you raise are exactly the same the Orthodox raise together with a few of the Protestant ones. I read them, I’ve heard them and many of them and they are nauseating. All I’ll say in conclusion is that it’s too bad you don’t see and cannot see Fatima in its true light. I’d be very careful calling Fatima apparition demonic. Like I said at the beginning, I’m very disappointed. One last thing: what an irony that it is precisely you who have helped me put the missing pieces of a puzzle together and it was because of the message of Fatima. It never made sense to me why did Our Lady say that Russia will be the scourge of the world because I always saw America as an aggressor going all over the world and spreading her “democracy”. Then I came across Brendon O’Connell, it wasn’t him directly but another channel who featured him, that was about 4-5 years ago, where he talked about all those Russian and other Eastern European but predominantly Russian jews who established the state of Israel. Since everything revolves around Israel as a hub and a centre of the world it dawned on me and I then realized why Russia. I then came across your website, the old one and read the Perestroika deception and remembered also the prophecy that communism will be worldwide. You helped me put that missing piece of a puzzle together and that piece was from the Fatima prophecy. How ironic that you call it demonic yet God used you to help me understand that missing piece why Russia. Yeah, God does work in mysterious ways.
Christine, you are attacking the weaker arguments of Diaz’ book without addressing the more concerning ones regarding Fatima itself. I think you ought to actually read the book and be honest with the arguments presented. It seems like you have just skimmed the book for a weak argument to attack in hopes of discrediting the author.
You accuse me of twisting words, yet many Fatimists twist the meaning of Fatima to suit their own ideas, to the point where they misquote what was actually written by Lucia. It’s like a rumour that gets spread around to the point where eventually it’s lost it’s original meaning. It seems like most Fatimists have not actually read original source material and just spread the hype about it. It’s time actually read what Lucia wrote and what her family wrote about her.
For instance, do you know that Lucia initially believed the apparition was the devil? Bet you never heard that uttered in your local parish. How is it that a young child would think the apparition was the devil if the apparition was so holy?
Timothy, what I know about Fatima is not from my local parish nor any parish for that matter but it comes from years of research to decode what’s true and what’s false. The best sources I found were thepopeinred.com, Dimond brothers’ Third Secret explaining the false sister Lucia with a supporting evidence and then the work of Father Luigi Villa with his Chiesa Viva publications now run by Franco Adessa. Fatima was approved not by Vatican II sect but before it by the still true Church. The last true pope was Pius XII who died in 1958. Then came the Freemasonic usurper John XXIII and the whole judeo-masonic freak show began with all the drama and deceptions and novelties and scandals etc. As for Mary’s supposed worship: the best way to look at the Holy Mother is as the Arch of the New Covenant. As in the Old Testament God was stern when it came to handling the Arch so it should be also with the New Testament Arch. She plays a very important role in the plan of salvation and She is the forerunner of Christ’s second coming. Just as John the Baptist was the forerunner of Jesus’s first coming, the Holy Mother was chosen to be His second forerunner. Once that is understood, it should also be understood that even though John the Baptist is a prophet of prophets, the highest among them, the Holy Mother far surpasses him for She is exalted above the Cherubim and the Seraphim. Isn’t that the hymn that the Orthodox sing? I know that hymn very well. We are in the end times and because of that She has a special role assigned to Her as the Woman fighting the old dragon (Satan). That needs to be understood in the serious significance that it deserves. As for peace I did say that that will only come AFTER the reign of the Antichrist NOT before. Almost everybody thinks that after the Antichrist the world will end and the Last Judgement will begin. That is not the case at all. God has seasons, the Church has seasons and now we are in the season of the coming of the Antichrist. After that there will be an Era of Peace, the reign of Christ on Earth but not with Christ coming down with His Body as almost everybody believes and physically reigning over the Earth. The Lord Jesus Christ will reign over this poor Earth but spiritually. The physical reign of Christ over the whole Creation in the New Heaven and New Earth will happen AFTER the Last Judgement and that is way way far off. Are we in the judgement? Yes but not the Last Judgement. We are in the judgement and the grand selection of wheat and tares. People are choosing their sides, either with Christ or with the Antichrist. I won’t comment anymore with regards to Fatima as it’ll never end. We will be back and forth exchanging points that lead nowhere. You see it in a totally different light than only few true Catholics have the grace to see. I’m obviously not referring to the masses because the masses don’t really know the true message of Fatima as it’s been hijacked by the judeo-masonic forces and twisted and omitted that’s why there is so much confusion and arguments surrounding it. But the few know the true message and treat it accordingly. Peace.
I suggest reading thoroughly the actual accounts by the firsthand “witnesses”. Go to the source, not commentary.
This is the common refrain, but it doesn’t stand up to reason. Reason says that the terrible manifestations at the Second Vatican Council could not have materialized in a matter of only a few years. They needed decades, perhaps even centuries with which to fester. And in order to fester the way they did, they would’ve needed Papal participation. It’s a little overly simplistic to think that Pope Pius XII was a good pope simply because he professed anti-communism and maintained an appearance of tradition.
It’s very naive to think that the Vatican was holy right up until Vatican II. Fatima became the popular cult that it did with the direct help of those cardinals that voted in favour of Vatican II.
My view of the Virgin Mary is not confused. I am content with it. I believe that I venerate her appropriately. However, many traditional Catholics seem to think that it is impossible to venerate her inappropriately. Obviously, this is an unreasonable point of view. She can be and is venerated inappropriately, sometimes even worshipped. This is grave error not to be taken lightly. Trads must be careful with their veneration of Mary.
That role was to bring the Messiah into the world, which she accomplished. Jesus is the one who crushes the serpent’s head, not Mary, although she is involved as the Christ bearer.
This is an eschatology that is pure speculation. The Catholic Church does not teach specific eschatology; however, the Church Fathers were largely post-millennialist (the 1,000-year reign of Christ was the Church age and not yet future).
Did you ever consider that it was you who were in error over Fatima?
You seem to hang on to Fatima like it is the Gospel. I, on the other hand, choose to hang onto the Gospel of Jesus Christ—and only His Gospel. And it is no less Catholic to say such.
Many duped fake “Catholics” believe the phony version of the 3rd Secret of Fatima released by the now freemasonic & jewish controlled Vatican, so they think Russia will convert to Catholicism. Most false traditionalists won’t tell you, but Russia was already consecrated. It’s historically documented. Pope Pius XII also verbally & specifically consecrated “the peoples of Russia” in 7 July 1952 via his Papal bull “Sacro Vergente”. It wasn’t adequate to fulfill what Our Lady fully offered, because it was done late. Hence there still being a later period of Russian peace as Our Lady promised, yet massive war broke out (WW2) as a result of the consecration being done too late.
Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary said Russia “would be converted” & there will be a period of peace. Not permanent peace. Sacred scripture shows that conversion doesn’t always mean religious conversion, & that it can mean converted to peace. Evident via recent events, that period of peace is now over. Russia will be a wickedly violent nation until the end of days, which comes to an end very shortly.
When the ways of man shall please the Lord, he will convert even his enemies to peace. – Proverbs 16:7
This documentary explains the 3rd Secret & how a fake 3rd secret was released:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_hUdRKi4o
The Fatima apparition’s eschatology seems rather premillennial dispensationalist, which certainly was not taught by the Church Fathers. It’s sad that Catholics would rather hope in the words of a questionable apparition rather than the Word of God itself. The Apocalypse is more than sufficient to tell us of the future, don’t you think?
It lines up perfectly with Catholic prophecy, which is generally viewed as amillenialism, with the saints having reigned with Christ for at least 1,000 Catholic years & now, with that period ended, the world is completely going into perdition for a short time. As there is nothing in scripture which tells us we must limit all understanding of miracles & prophecy only to the time of the Bible, to assume so would be to deny evidence of countless Catholic miracles; i.e. image of Our Lady of Guadeloupe, St Joseph’s Staircase, etc. The argument made in the documentary I shared is that the Revelation 12 prophecy was completed by the Fatima apparition: Because She was clothed with the sun, auroras appeared at the dawn of WW2, the world was promised a “conversion” of peace (which did occur, for a time, compared to the openly soviet era).
Much of apocalyptic prophecy (even regarding the antichrist) has already been fulfilled & completed, even if “hasidics” await a false messiah & a 3rd temple (which could not be the “temple of God” prophesied in 2 Thessalonians 2:4, as God would never call a temple of the false religion of Judaism a temple of God). Antipope John Paul II made a perfect fulfillment of antichrist – he literally taught that everyone is Christ, & that man is “the Son of the living God”. Benedict XVI “made an image to the beast” when John Paul II was “canonized”, which subsequently was the Vatican II sect calling an idolater a “saint”… John Paul II was also “wounded by a sword & did live”, & “his deadly wound was healed” in 1982 by a man who, actually called him the antichrist. There are also several prophecies already fulfilled regarding the “abomination of desolation”, as the abominable “New Mass” turned Catholic masses into Protestant styled services – particularly by satanic jewish infiltrator Paul VI, who is Montini family jewish.
This explains Biblical prophecies already fulfilled with exacting clarity from a Catholic point-of-view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u02sNHRNLCk
This proves we are actually at the tail end of prophecy, while most await fulfillment of typical end-times predictions but will be caught off guard. We are actually nearing the judgment with grave closeness:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u02sNHRNLCk
Your last paragraph rings true & brings to mind these words :
And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares.
35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.
36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.
‘AmericaJesusFreedom’, Michael Dimond said the world would end in 1996. Why should people take his current thoughts seriously on the antichrist & how the world is going to end?
@joshf731, I watched the clip, Bro. Michael said sth like “…say, five years.” Any reasonable person would understand he meant to say it could be as soon as in five years. And they’ve stated over and over that it’s their personal opinion, many popes and saints were wrong on apocalyptic events, yet it does not hinder us from consulting and respecting their judgments. Just to be clear I don’t completely agree with their opinions on secular matters, for example Flat Earth.
@Michael
This is what he said:
“Which I believe absolutely…the end of the age, the great chastisement is going to befall us in the next few years. Over the next say, 5 years from now.”
Regardless, there are many errors in his videos where he argues JPII is THE antichrist.
https://youtu.be/CE2yPTbxI4w
It’s been a good long while since I’ve looked at this blog, and with good reason. I can only conclude from the few articles I have now had the misfortune to read that it is YOU who are a subversive agent and likely he’ll bound. I hope not to be in your company on the other side. Watch your filthy lying mouth, Fitzpatrick.
Subversive agent for whom? Hell bound? What mortal sin have I committed?
“She asked the children to sacrifice themselves for sinners, which is contrary to Christ.”
Come on, Fitz, this is not Catholic.
While all our sacrifices for sinners would be worthless if it were not because of Christ’s death, we must pray and do penance for them. It is basic catholicism. You don’t even quote a Pope or theologian or saint to prove your position. What’s next, you will attack the Sacred Heart Devotion?
The following links are Catholic books with Nihil Obstat & Imprimatur that teach what you just declared “contrary to Christ.”
https://archive.org/details/handbookofapostl00unse
https://archive.org/details/monthofthesacred00berluoft/page/74/mode/2up
I believe you should dedicate yourself to learn Catholic theology. The following website has many books where you can learn about it.
https://catholicarchivist2.blogspot.com/
Another question, How can you convert people to Catholicism if your knowledge of Catholic doctrine is flawed?
Salutations
How canst YOU convert people when thine own mind is beyond flawed, but rather melted. Suffused with the lies of this age?
Bernal, it’s interesting that Russia and its errors are not mentioned in any of the 1917 documents of Fatima. Only 11 years later do we start to hear about the Russia prophecy. That sort of discredits the idea that the apparition was warning us about Communism when Communism had been fully established in Russia long before 1928.
Also, the description that eye witnesses used for the so called miracle of the sun was that it was a “dull, silver disc”. That’s quite different from the narrative we always hear.
By the way, I agree with the Dimond brothers here: https://vaticancatholic.com/mary-co-redeemer-co-redemptrix/
This guy isn’t catholic. He isn’t even Sede. He’s a nutcase who’s jealous other nutcases get more exposure than him
CORRECT THE MASONIC NATURALISTY INDIFFERENIST PANTHETHEISTIC AND INVERTED UNIVERSAL BROTYHOOD OF MAN REMOVING CHRIST’S NEW LAW AND DIGITYY IN CHRIST THROUGH SACRAMENTS OF SANCTFYING GRACE
Who is the author Bernal Diaz? The Spanish Jew conquistador of the 16th century? That’s the only bio I could find with that name.
Yes, probably a pseudonym.
How was he a Spanish Jew? Bernal Diaz was a man of honor! A good catholic. Unlike you. For you are disloyal, and a bad catholic.
Sorry Dave but I don’t know the intention behind your writing this comment. Was it in refutation or in support of mine?
The appearance of Our Lady at Fatima, the report of the shepherd children of her statements which include prophecies and elucidation of her prophecies in later appearances to Sr Lucia at Tuy and of course the miracle of the sun have become a matter of public revelation since Pope Pius XII Oct 31 1942 and the consecrations he made to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
These were solemn, pontifical acts under the power of the Keys. He did not consecrate Russia, but he made solemn, pontifical consecrations to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with specific reference to our Lady’s appearance at Fatima. Since that time, we are not talking about a private revelation “worthy of credence” according to the Bishop of Leiria as stated in his pastoral letter Oct 13, 1930. We are talking about public revelation – the import of which is still being worked out because some of these prophecies have yet to be fulfilled.
In reflection of the Immaculate Heart Devotion and its establishment in the world through so many dioceses that have followed through with the consecrations of Pope Pius XII, there is much still be be understood because since the Vatican Council II, the necessary theological reflection has been censored, obfuscated, side-lined and some of it has been falsified.
The needed theological reflection begins in Christology, not in Marian devotion which in the doctrines of the Church glorifies the Christological doctrines and not the other way around.
As has been stated on this website, “the errors of Russia” are not just about Communism. Post the Great Schism , the Eastern Orthodox have rejected teaching of the Church which has been clarified and now is de fide. Such were always ‘of the faith’ because Revelation is complete. However, aspects of Revelation were to become explicit through the Church in time. Our Lord stated this in John 16:12- 14. “I have many things to say to you but you can not bear them now. When the Spirit of Truth comes , He will guide you into all truth…” It took roughly four centuries for the Church to make explicit the great Christological doctrines. They were always revealed. Clearly they are in scripture and the deposit of faith. But they were not explicitly defined until the Church explicitly defined them – against heretics. So the heretics have their uses. Of our Lord – He is true God , the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. He is true man. As man, He possesses a Divine (not a human) soul. He took upon Himself the human nature of the Adamic race.
In post Revolutionary modern times the heretics in the Church got to work on these doctrines and began to speak of our Lord as through he took upon Himself , in His Incarnation, the fallen Adamic nature.
This is very different than the Church’s assertion that as the Immaculate Lamb of God, our Lord upon the Cross took upon Himself all sin from the original sin of Adam which became the inheritance of every human being descended from Adam as well as every sin committed within that inheritance. As true God and true man, Our Lord made an atonement for all sin with His sacrifice of infinite merit upon the Cross.
But the modern heretics writing on the basis of the naturalism of the Revolution, came along and said that as the Last Adam, our Lord took upon Himself the fallen Adamic nature in his incarnation and so He was made like unto us. They censored the Divine Soul aspect of the Christic nature. Our Lord is without sin they asserted because he never sinned. But in being made “like unto us’ they taught (and still teach) that our Lord possessed the Adamic nature that passed down through the generations. And this is a fallen nature.
Against these heresies, Pope Pius IX defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception (Ineffabilis Deus Dec 8 , 1854) – which the Christian East rejects thus deepening the Schism. In thus defining this dogma, the Holy Father did not create a new doctrine, he made explicit many passages of Sacred scripture. The Annunciation for example. To what fallen descendant of Adam with original sin is an Archangel going to greet with the words: “Hail thou full (plenitude) of grace”. Did the Blessed Virgin have the original sin of our first parents like every other descendant of Adam and Eve? No. The Archangel Gabriel and the Church say: no. Our Lady in her appearance to Bernadette at Lourdes says: no. Rather she says: “I am the Immaculate Conception”. She is a descendant of Adam, a human being – her human, Adamic nature inherited from her parents at her conception was made entirely new, not merely restored. This is the new Adamic nature of the Second Man, this is not the original benediction of Father Adam, but an immaculate Adamic nature – a new creation in the Divine Logos whom she will conceive as Christ Jesus , our Lord.
So this is a Christological doctrine. Our Lord is true God. In His Human nature He possesses the Divine soul. In the human nature he inherited from His Blessed Mother who is descended from Adam, our Lord possesses an Adamic nature that is new creation – an immaculate human nature which subsumes into itself the original benediction of Adam. As a descendant of Adam, our Lord does not inherit from His Mother a fallen nature. And in the work of redemption, as the immaculate Lamb of God, he makes atonement for all sin. Thus it follows that as new Eve, the Blessed Mother who is also Mother of our Lord’s body the Church is bringing to birth through baptism and the Christic life – this new creation which is being redeemed out of the old and fallen Adamic nature and given the new nature of the Second Man. . The Church will be making the journey again this Lent and our Lady as the pilgrim Virgin Mother of the Church will be making it with us.
This is the context in which the entire Fatima event is still unfolding , just like the Church, forever young is still aborning.
Right now we are in that part of her prophecy that concerned not ‘the End’ of time itself, but the last times of the world and the end of the times she foretold. As we know from scripture and from the great encyclical Pascendi , Pope St Pius X (1907) there must be a restoration of all things (omnia instaurare in Christo) before ‘the End’ and our Lord’s return in triumph. This restoration will be a great victory for the Church. Our Lady calls this restoration: the triumph of Her Immaculate Heart – but it clearly is the victory of Christ the King in the end times of the world.
Let us all make a good Lent.
Excellent response to the obviously Masonic anti-Catholic article by Fitz. Thank you.
Can you point to something specific in my book review that is anti-Catholic? If not, you had better recant your accusation.
If equating veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary to idol worship isn’t anti-Catholic, I don’t know what is. It’s one of the favourite arguments of Protestants. Aren’t sola scriptura types, by their very nature, ant-Catholic?
Neither Diaz nor I are equating veneration of Mary with idol worship. Obviously, you haven’t read the book. You shouldn’t be commenting without doing so.
Let me ask you something. Do you think it’s possible that some Catholics can mistakenly worship Mary instead of appropriate veneration?
No. not “anti-Catholic”, but “pro-truth”. You’ve been conditioned to think that way, as I once was
Lindesymonds,
Strange aerial phenomena are not not necessarily miracles. If it really were the sun dancing in the sky and not just a spirit manifesting as a very bright light, then why wasn’t this incredible claim reported anywhere else in the world within eight hours of the time zone of Portugal? Yeah, I know all about the supposed 25 mile radius of this alleged sun dance, but if it really happened that way, surely everyone within an eight our time zone would have seen the sun dancing too, but this was not the case.
Just because there were multiple witnesses does not mean that it is a public revelation. It is still a private revelation. Even today’s Vatican admits that.
This is all speculation and/or fantasy. Fatimists love to indulge in conspiracy theories about the alleged suppression of the alleged secrets and replacements (Lucia) to further the mystery of the Fatima apparitions. Secrets are alluring, but the Catholic faith has no secrets. Christ has already been revealed.
Fatima did not tell the world anything it didn’t already know regarding the errors of Russia. Communism had long been established by the time Lucia’s writings were revealed and it wouldn’t have taken a geo-political genius to figure out the trajectory of Russia’s complete capitulation to the communist conspiracy.
The Apocalypse is not enough? We need to add to it through alleged Marian apparitions? Christ’s foretelling of the future through St. John wasn’t enough? What restoration? “Our Lady of Fatima’s” talk of a period of peace is not in accord with Bible prophecy. There is no indication of peace. The opposite is what is indicated. When you forsake Holy Scripture and tradition for absurd fantasies like Fatima, you open yourself up to deception.
Fitzpatrick,
I respect your work, but you tread dangerously close to denying the infallibility of the teaching authority of the Church. The rosary and prayers associated with it had been authorized long before Fatima. Different devotions to our Lady have likewise been authorized long before Fatima. Fatima itself was deemed worthy of belief, and therefore is, at minimum, safe for Catholics to believe, although—as you point out—not required.
You might deny later words and acts that were not included in the earlier approval that allegedly come from Sr. Lucia. It is certainly true that Fatima has been abused and may very well be used in order to justify a future anti/false Pope in relation to the coming Eurasian/anti-Christian world order. I do think you are going too far in denying the eminent position of our Lady perhaps due to various other abuses such as people blaspheming she can be present in the Holy Eucharist. Those abuses obscure but should not prevent a Catholic from finding the true teaching that comes from the infallible teaching authority of the Church.
I can’t bind your conscience or speak authoritatively, but I hope you reconsider your position for something more reasonable in light of the current evidence.
Where did either I or Diaz deny the eminent position of Mary? Sure, Fatima was deemed worthy of belief by the parish priest in Fatima and approved by what became the fathers of the heretical Second Vatican Council.
Ok, I retract. To be honest, I haven’t looked into the investigators, but I am sure when you made this post it was not done lightly. I’ll look into it, and actually, thank you for bringing this up. There are different characters coming out and talking about the need to consecrate Russia again with the events in Ukraine. If we see a Novus Ordian “Pope” come out and restore peace that ends in Eurasianism, well, you warned us.
What could happen is that Putin is replaced with a president that appears good (brings temporary peace) and they may even continue the merger with Orthodoxy (what will be sold as consecration), with the help of the “pope”, as you point out.
Do you hold that Vatican 1 was a legitimate council? I do, but it seemed to place a lot more power in the Papacy which then became conquered. I don’t know too much about V1 so I’m curious what your thoughts are.
I haven’t studied that council in depth yet, but so far I don’t see it as illegitimate.
You don’t get to pick which things are legitimate and what aren’t
That’s literally Protestantism
Many duped fake “Catholics” believe the phony version of the 3rd Secret of Fatima released by the now freemasonic & jewish controlled Vatican, so they think Russia will convert to Catholicism. Most false traditionalists won’t tell you, but Russia was already consecrated. It’s historically documented. Pope Pius XII also verbally & specifically consecrated “the peoples of Russia” in 7 July 1952 via his Papal bull “Sacro Vergente”. It wasn’t adequate to fulfill what Our Lady fully offered, because it was done late. Hence there still being a later period of Russian peace as Our Lady promised, yet massive war broke out (WW2) as a result of the consecration being done too late.
Our Lady the Blessed Virgin Mary said Russia “would be converted” to a period of peace. Not permanent peace. Sacred scripture shows that the word “conversion” doesn’t always mean religious conversion, & that it can mean converted to peace. Evident via recent events, that period of peace is now over. Russia will be a wickedly violent nation until the end of days, which comes to an end very shortly.
When the ways of man shall please the Lord, he will convert even his enemies to peace. – Proverbs 16:7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB_hUdRKi4o
St Malachy Prophecy: Antipope Francis “reigns” then the End of the World:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLaSMLSgEmQ
Fitz, I hope you are sedevacantist for the sake of your soul. Check out MHFM’s website & channel:
youtube.com/mhfm1
Yes, I know all about MHFM. This whole Third Secret controversy is just more background noise to legitimize Fatima itself. It’s like calling out a small fraud within a bigger fraud. It’s moot. There was no period of peace in Russia. The GULAG system is still in operation today, along with the looting of the peasants, torturing, and the murders.
Whatever the Vatican post the Revolution in the Church says about Fatima is irrelevant. Furthermore, it has said nothing under the authority of the Keys because the Conciliar Church does not use the power of the Keys.
“Public revelation’ or ‘private revelation’ has nothing to do with numbers or how many people saw whatever (or didn’t see it). No one saw Christ’s resurrection from the dead but it is public revelation and part of the sacred deposit of the faith because of the Apostolic witness and authority to interpret the scriptures in this way. And those Apostles have successors in the Church.
At Fatima, 70,000 people said they saw a ‘sign in the sun’ – by various descriptions on Oct 13 1917 – an event which has come to be called the miracle of the sun. The representatives of the secular (Masonic) press who were there gave their report on page 1 of O Seculo. It is the witness to the event which has been discerned and judged ‘worthy of credence’ by bishops. That is not binding on any Catholic. The Holy Father , Pope Pius XIII has referred to this witness in solemn pontifical acts of consecration to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart invoking the power of the Keys. This is public. .
As for the restoration of all things before Christ’s return – this is in scripture – it was preached at Pentecost and Pope St. Pius X made this part of his Apostolic Constitution when he wrote against the infiltration and subversion of the Church. It is the teaching authority of the Church which interprets the scriptures – they are not of private interpretation.
Linde, without witnesses of a dancing sun in other parts of the world in the Atlantic time zones, the phenomena at Fatima can only be concluded to be local events. We can also conclude that it wasn’t the sun dancing but something else that appeared like the sun. There is no way around this. It doesn’t make a difference how many people in the area surrounding Fatima saw a dancing sun. It people out in the sun, say, in Spain or England did not see a dancing sun that day, it’s a localized event.
Is the restoration of all things to take place before the judgement? Pope Pius X was no opponent of the mortal sin of usury, so how much of a saint was he really? Dante puts usurers in the lowest depths of hell and the lustful at the highest depths of hell, yet Fatima seems to suggest the reverse.
Fatima is a private revelation. The Vatican admits this, no matter how many times you repeat that it isn’t. And while Fatima may not have happened post-Vatican II, it happened in the Vatican II era, among the very same Bishops and Cardinals that approved Vatican II,
I believe it’s wrong to cast Pius X as not an opponent of usury, as the 1917 Code of Canon Law heavily punishes usurers both lay and clerical.
You can not ‘refute’ Pascendi by saying that Pope St Pius X was ‘no opponent of the mortal sin of usury’. He was a prisoner in the Vatican after the Revolution swept through the Italian Peninsula. You will not be able to cite one text of Pope St Pius X where he speaks against the teaching of the Church and in favour of usury.
He did however address the infiltration of the Church by secret societies.
‘Omnia instaurare in Christo’ (‘the restoration of all things’) was the motto of his Apostolic Constitution , namely the text from the prophet Joel which was proclaimed at Pentecost with reference to Jesus Christ: ” Whom the heaven indeed must receive until the times of the restitution of all things” The Acts 3:21. This text does not say that when He comes, Christ will then restore all things, rather it states that He will not return until all things are restored. As in “Elias must first come and restore all things”. Matt 17:11.
Pontifical acts by Pope Pius XII invoking the Keys with reference to the Fatima witness is not an admission by the Vatican that Fatima is a private revelation.
You speak as though the truth or falsehood of Fatima depends upon it being a planetary event as opposed to being a localized event. I never heard of this type of argument from any source. These issues have never been raised with regard to the inquiry into what those present witnessed. There is no conclusion on the part of anyone that Fatima was a global or planetary event. I have never read anything of that nature. Fatima was a visionary event. It is irrelevant what people in England saw or did not see in the geo-physical firmament on Oct 13 1917. .
In his discourse on Fatima, Malachi Martin stated many times that our Lady’s appearance at Fatima should be taken to mean that : ‘salvation comes from Russia’. This is a false interpretation and he is the only source for this statement. . Martin , a crypto Jew is one of the architects of the Vatican II Council Rather Sr Lucia stated many times that if the consecration of Russia to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart were not done by the Holy Father and all the bishops , then “Russia will be instrument to chastise the entire world for its sins.” She stated this in her final prophetic interview with Fr Augustin Fuentes Dec 26, 1957. She said nothing about ‘salvation’ coming from Russia.
Thank you Lindesymods for this comment and the previous ones. You absolutely get it and understand Fatima in its proper meaning and light. I have in my possession the correct third secret of Fatima. It’s from a publication from the Apostolate of Our Lady of Good Success by Franco Adessa. Those are from Father Luigi Villa’s Chiesa Viva publications and as we know Father Luigi Villa was appointed by Padre Pio to fight against the Ecclesiastical Freemasonry within the Church. His exposes and writings are phenomenal. I highly recommend them. Once again, thank you very much.
You are most welcome Christine. May the valiant soul of Fr Luigi Villa rest in the peace of our Lord. Thank you for acknowledging him here. I have read Chiesa Viva with great interest and benefit. Fr Villa certainly did a great work in helping to expose Ecclesiastical Freemasonry.
Well they certainly have the wind in their sails now. In 2021, Acting Pope Francis (No.II) abrogated what can not be abrogated – namely the canonized Roman Rite and is now in manifest conflict with Pope Benedict holding the munus (the office). For Pope Benedict has stated (with Pope St Pius V) that the canonized Roman Rite could never be abrogated in law (de jure) – even though he had to concede it had been abrogated de facto since the promulgation of the novus ordo missae by Pope Paul VI.
So Russia which the Chabad Lubavich has pronounced ‘Moshiach ready’ invades Ukraine. And the Ecclesiastical masons who have laboured for the Great Apostasy to spread from Rome itself over so many decades can now rest from their labours. They have done their work. Were it not for the work of priests like Fr Villa exposing them, the measure of what success they will have in the test would have been greater. We will soon see the extent of their failure.
Thank you lindesymonds. I don’t call antipopes popes. So Benedict XVI was an antipope just as John XXIII, just as Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and now this total fraud Bergoglio who can’t even pretend to be a pope. All of them were heretics. All of them supported the illegitimate Vatican II council, all of them were hobnobbing with TPTB except John Paul I whose reign was very short but he was still in heresy and supportive of abortions. All of them were teaching heresies and trying to unite all faiths which is a masonic concept. If you are familiar with Fr Luigi Villa’s work then I suggest you check out Chiesa Viva’s publication called Antichrist in the Church of Christ which deals with Ratzinger in depth. Don’t fall for his support of the Latin Mass. It’s part of the psy-op. In many ways, what these Freemasons do in the Church can be compared to what is going on with the covid. It’s a multi-layered psy-op, psy-op within a psy-op to completely derail and confuse. That tactic is called Alice in the Wonderland and they sure are great masters of it. As for Bergoglio abrogating the Latin Mass, well, it’s not surprising. Bergoglio has absolutely nothing to do with catholicism and he’s been appointed to dismantle the Church completely and prepare it for the stage of the Antichrist. That will be achieved with the synodal process and if it goes according to their plan, then it should be achieved sometime next year. It really doesn’t surprise me that he’s banning the Latin Masses. He’s only acting in accordance with his nature and the role assigned to him. Each anti-pope had a role/ a task assigned to him. Each one accomplished that role as appointed. Check out Dimond brothers’ video on that. Their analysis of it is spot on. All the best. Here is that short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFFVqavTae4
And the Medici popes were true popes, Leo X, for example?
Also, you have to ask yourself why anti-Pope John Paul II created the FSSP. It seems as a controlled opposition stable.
From Pascendi.
For crying out! Pius X is explaining one of the many doctrines of Modernism in that passage. He is not saying this is true! Not at all!
You’re correct. I see that now.
You usually don’t take passages out of context, but here you did! Here’s the full passage:
Thus far, Venerable Brethren, We have considered the Modernist as a philosopher. Now if We proceed to consider him as a believer, and seek to know how the believer, according to Modernism, is marked off from the philosopher, it must be observed that, although the philosopher recognizes the reality of the divine as the object of faith, still this reality is not to be found by him but in the heart of the believer, as an object of feeling and affirmation, and therefore confined within the sphere of phenomena; but the question as to whether in itself it exists outside that feeling and affirmation is one which the philosopher passes over and neglects. For the Modernist believer, on the contrary, it is an established and certain fact that the reality of the divine does really exist in itself and quite independently of the person who believes in it. If you ask on what foundation this assertion of the believer rests, he answers: In the personal experience of the individual. On this head the Modernists differ from the Rationalists only to fall into the views of the Protestants and pseudo-mystics. The following is their manner of stating the question: In the religious sense one must recognize a kind of intuition of the heart which puts man in immediate contact with the reality of God, and infuses such a persuasion of God’s existence and His action both within and without man as far to exceed any scientific conviction. They assert, therefore, the existence of a real experience, and one of a kind that surpasses all rational experience. If this experience is denied by some, like the Rationalists, they say that this arises from the fact that such persons are unwilling to put themselves in the moral state necessary to produce it. It is this experience which makes the person who acquires it to be properly and truly a believer.
How far this position is removed from that of Catholic teaching! We have already seen how its fallacies have been condemned by the Vatican Council. Later on, we shall see how these errors, combined with those which we have already mentioned, open wide the way to Atheism. Here it is well to note at once that, given this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism, every religion, even that of paganism, must be held to be true. What is to prevent such experiences from being found in any religion? In fact, that they are so is maintained by not a few. On what grounds can Modernists deny the truth of an experience affirmed by a follower of Islam? Will they claim a monopoly of true experiences for Catholics alone? Indeed, Modernists do not deny, but actually maintain, some confusedly, others frankly, that all religions are true. That they cannot feel otherwise is obvious. For on what ground, according to their theories, could falsity be predicated of any religion whatsoever?
I made the mistake of believing in Hoffman’s sincerity—that he would quote his sources in context. Now everything he says in Occult Renaissance needs to be re-examined. I am writing a review of it (btw, it did not influence my Fatima review. That’s just coincidental, or providential, depending on your view.)
In the discourse of Pope Pius X, the above quotation is an illustration of Modernism which his encyclical (given under the seal of the Fisherman) is binding upon Catholics to believe. Modernism, he states in that encyclical is ‘the sum of all heresies and the entire encyclical condemns in no uncertain terms. His subject reference “this doctrine” in context does not refer to Catholic doctrine. In this statement he is giving an example of one of the characteristics of: Modernism : “this doctrine of experience united with that of symbolism” . The header of his paragraph is an exclamation of how far removed are the positions of Modernism from Catholic teaching.
The Medici popes may have lived in luxury and made some decisions in the temporal order that would put them in the category of immoral and the types of bishops who definitely did not come up to the charges made to Timothy. This makes them bad Catholics but does not deprive them of office. “The floor of hell is paved with the skulls of rotten bishops” St. John Chrysostom famously remarked. He did not say these bishops were not bishops – he said they lost their souls because they failed of their office.
The Medici popes were in communion with their predecessors on what the Church has always and everywhere taught. Pope Leo X infallibly taught that Martin Luther was a heretic (Exsurge Domine) . Clement VII made a lot of temporal decisions – none of which are binding on Catholics to believe or disbelieve as good or bad: He recognized Copernican theory, protected Jews from the Inquisition and won battles for the Christendom. None of this makes him a heretic. Pope Pius IV presided over the final session of the Council of Trent – an exercise of the Keys that is valid in perpetuity.
In terms of the money power – usury , the lending of money at interest is condemned by the teaching of the Church and this teaching is honoured in practice by both breach and observance – including by popes. None of them ever taught that usury should be the basis of the economy of the state. All the Italian banking houses lent money at interest as venture capital and so did all the banking houses of central Europe. Pope Leo X was OK with that – a temporal decision. He was also a big playboy. “God has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it” Again a temporal decision. God will judge .
What charges brought up by me? I haven’t said anything about the Medicis yet.
Usury is condemned, but as Hoffman points out in both books, the Popes created loopholes in the so called banning of usury that permitted degrees of it and minimized, if not completely expunged, it as a grave offence in the confessional. Obviously today, the Vatican bank does engage in forms of usury. Hoffman argues that trads engage in semantics to get around this by changing the definition of usury as it suits their perception of the “Popes”. That’s a fair argument.
Usury is ANY interest/fee beyond the original value of a debt. Are you going to tell me that the Vatican banks don’t earn interest in their portfolios? Having a simple government bond would be usurious.
Lindesymonds, the only thing I forgot to add before I posted my last comment in response to yours was that though Dimond brothers’ analysis of Bergoglio’s decision to ban the Latin Mass is spot on, I do however not agree in the slightest with them claiming that JPII was the Antichrist. He sure did lay the groundwork for the masonic unification of faiths, the coming One World Religion when he held that ceremony in Assissi in 1986 but that still does not make him the Antichrist. He doesn’t at all fulfill the prophecies about the horrific persona of the man of perdition and certainly the whole world did not worship him nor did he cause people to receive the MoB. Besides, Antichrist together with the Beast and the false prophet together with everybody who followed them is to be destroyed by the breath of the Lord’s mouth and the splendour of His coming and that event certainly has not yet transpired. The Antichrist’s system, his infrastructure is in place right now, that consists of quantum computers, nanotech, 5G and higher, AI and Cern. Dimond brothers never address these matters as if they were of no or little significance because their entire focus is only around the Catholic Church. One must see the bigger picture. So that’s what I forgot to mention because I got ahead of myself by posting the comment and when I rewatched that video I realized that the part with JPII is not right. Other than that it’s on the point when stating that Bergoglio is only fulfilling his task. His goal is to destroy the papacy which is a plan of Freemasonry and the jews as declared in the Alta Venditta and the Protocols of learned elders of Zion. Ok, thank you once again for your support of the true message of Fatima and the teaching of the Church.
Idk Fatima is not dogma so it’s hard to want to bother one way or another. If you choose to believe it as a Catholic fine, just like anything else it’s not a substitute for the sacraments and other official worship practices. If not that’s fine too, just keep some respect for the people who do. I have been pretty suspicious of it since it came about in 1917 the same year that the Russian Revolution came about or finished depending on how you look at it. And it specifically mentions Russia aka the consecration. Many of the period pictures look staged and since at least the USSR we can see that low quality images can easily be painted/altered and look convincing at quick glance. The jews perfected this in both the USSR and the holohoax etc now it’s real time video etc that can be faked/altered as well as cgi slipped in and presented as real. Then the rumors floating around about how they supposedly replaced the children as adults with doppelgangers which is totally possible. The convoluted drama of the third secret etc just sounds very circus level. Then building some theme park at the site idk. There’s also no doubt that the real masters in the Vatican, cryptos/masons/marxists etc, have used it in a hijacked fashion even if it is real.
Jack, one of the problems with Fatima is that it tends to steer Catholics towards supporting Russia (under the assumption that it will be consecrated). We have no practical evidence for Russia to be consecrated. None. Has it shown any sign of converting to Catholicism, accepting the Filioque, or the primacy of the Pope? No. All we have is some strange apparition tell us this, and Catholics blindly accept this. It’s just so ridiculous. It’s an embarrassment to the Catholic faith.
I don’t doubt that it’s used for nefarious purposes by some and like I said I’m skeptical of it as well, as mentioned also it’s not dogma either. The timing and subject matter is also suspect, it’s too perfect too cogent to the world situation at the time and following times and as we know the so called press is mostly just a jew tool both intentionally with objectives and also as an unconscious programming tool which shows what talmudism/kabbalism is all about: materialism/worldliness is primary.
There’s also no doubt that Russia is a husk, after the brutal history of the late 19th century up until now,(I believe contrary to jew history that serfdom was a more peaceful spiritual life in many cases like feudalism: it’s much better for the vast majority of people especially when compared to our harried worrisome lives for decades) but there are also true believers there and God is an expert of bringing good out of evil so I wouldn’t say that it’s impossible for an awakening at least on an esoteric supernatural level. Never happen on a popular well publicized level. Yes the Church is the Spouse but there are unconscious members on a spiritual level regardless of the various heretical traditions they happened to be born into. Baptism is Baptism, even supernatural spiritual baptism is possible. We can’t see through the fog of the future and should never count out the capability of God. I don’t doubt the power of true prayer and drastic change can come about suddenly at times regardless of the programming that jews control everything through kabbalistic technology, they can’t and don’t.
On a side note that just popped into my head, as I’ve said the jews are masters at a jewish(freudian) pathology complex called projection, they project their evil onto others, portray others as the evil ones but are just externalizing, unconsciously usually, what they know about themselves and their gangster beliefs at all levels. Italian mafia infotainment is just really about mischpucka but they scapegoat it onto italians/ItAmericans and especially Catholicism as a defamation. True Catholicism is the opposite of true Judaism so it must be the primary scapegoat to be defamed. Sure there are Italian-American mafia but it’s a relatively very small isolated synthetic modern tradition, cryptos are who control it and I believe freemasons and their paramilitary structure are the origin of it in the 19th century. But in the non-jew-mason aspect it was isolated and just banditry, probably rare, not organized and weaponized until the jews-masons did so. Then we got a whole crypto/jew hollywood mega wave of programming which raised it way up in the third party public consciousness and thus weaponized into an anti-Catholic tool. The once strong Catholicism of the Irish is also another example in infotainment. Freudianism, Einsteinism, Darwinism these are three major jewish origin projections of their pathology, Darwin was a mason/ had the spirit of judaism no doubt and the fact that these three were so WELL publicized points to the true backers. It’s a mind control cult that is well entrenched in the jewish marxist conformist matrix we’re in: in many contexts it’s not possible by anyone to disagree with any of them. These three major pillars of world marxism are just another externalization/projection of judaism. These three pillars and more applies to jews almost exclusively, they’re symptoms of their spiritual deadness, but their projection has spread them like a virus into world society. It’s a catastrophe. When we see this stuff all over in entertainment etc just see it as judaism illustrated, that will help people to recognize what’s going on more clearly.
There is no doubt that the Conciliar Church (from Pope Paul IV – present day) and the Apostates, cryptos, masons, Marxists subverting it from Catholic faith and morals have done everything within their power to promote a false version of the Fatima reports, witness and reflection. They have deceived many and will continue to do so. The Sister Lucy double would be the place to start. That is why the questions, concerns, information being posted are legitimate and of concern.
I can only conclude that the Lucia double theory is just a dangling carrot to keep Fatimists distracted and in anticipation. String them along, as they say. It creates a mystique around “the real Lucia” and the real “third secret”, when it’s all just hogwash.
The more one looks into Fatima, the more unscriptural support one finds. Heresies and secrets—both things which have nothing in common with Christ’s message.
Perhaps Catholics have become too lax and thus use Fatima as a crutch.
No one need waste any time at all on the Sr Lucia / double ‘theory’.
There many photos of Sr Lucia of Fatima as both a Dorthean and Carmelite sister before her final interview with Fr Fuentes 1957 – prayerful, recollected, suffering the prophetic burden, speaking of the loss of consecrated souls (the Great Apostasy). She is a living portrait of the spirit of Carmel.
And then there are many photo ops of Sr Lucia of Fatima II who was foisted onto the world when the Conciliar popes started visiting Fatima, spinning the new narrative. Sr Lucia of Fatima II was there when John Paul II did his bogus consecration of Russia (without any mention of Russia). She had a big interview with John Paul II chatting away, clapping and assuring everyone that the consecration had now been done.
All you have to do to put the Sr Lucia of Fatima double theory to rest is type her name into a search engine, hit images and look at the pictures. Make of it what you will – these are two different women.
It doesn’t matter about body doubles and what not when you have the heretical words of the apparition to debunk the entire affair.
Interesting quote from Michael Hoffman in The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome:
pages 373-374
Fatima is questionable but I researched Our Lady of La Salette and believe it is authentic..The Virgin talks about Jesus Christ..reveals future changes in humanity and the Church..She says the Church will be in an eclipse and the clergy will become lovers of fame money and lead many souls into sin.The fact that the church is against the messages from Lasalette to the children shows it to be authentic..Everything the virgin said will happen is occurring..Also The eastern church venerates the Virgin Mary to a high extreme also I almost seen as catholic given that they say they don’t. The Virgin Mary plays an appointment Roll in the Old Testament there are many types which can be shown to be speaking about the Virgin…She was created by GOD just as Satan…Who is once the most powerful angel created why wouldn’t God create Mary true is going to be the mother of the father Jesus Christ as just as powerful..All the saintsthroughout time Have spoken about Mary and how she has visited them where they lying or were they all say Satanic visions??
Hello, Matt. Each apparition needs to be investigated case by case. Unfortunately, we can’t rely on the counter-church to validate it for us. I know very little about other apparitions, so I can’t comment at this time.
My gripe with Fatima is that Sister Lucie added more and more information to the story every time she was asked. This is in contrast to Saint Bernadette of Lourdes who was asked many times to recount what she saw, and her story nver changed.
Catholic dogma assures us that communion is valid in either form as the real presence is there both in the wine and the sacred host. So unlike the Anglicans who commune both with bread and wine, there is no need to commune in both forms. However, sister Lucie revealed (in about 1931 I believe) that an angel appeared to them in 1916 to give them holy communion. Lucie received communion in the usual form as a host, whilst Jacinta and Francesco received the communion wine. From a catholic perspective this makes no sense, if both forms are valid. The explanation often given is that Jacinta and Francesco had not yet made their first communion, but this is not really an explanation, but simply an excuse.
https://aleteia.org/2020/05/13/the-eucharistic-miracle-that-occurred-at-fatima/
Then Lucia records, “After that he rose, took again in his hand the chalice and the host. The host he gave to me and the contents of the chalice he gave to Jacinta and Francisco, saying at the same time, ‘Eat and drink the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ terribly outraged by the ingratitude of men. Offer reparation for their sakes and console God.’”
I’ve asked one or two priests to explain this difference, as it goes against the dogma of the Church. They also find it odd.
In conclusion, Fatima adds nothing except confusion to the Catholic religion and I risk nothing by doubting it because it’s not dogma.
Godefroy, I do not dispute that you can hold the Catholic faith and be a doubter of the history of Fatima as it has come down to us – even through many documents bearing the imprimatur. This is your loss. You do not find the accounts of so many witnesses ‘worthy of credence’. Again. Your loss. Our Lady is the Mother of Good Counsel.
You are going too far when you state that communion under both kinds goes against the dogma of the Church. And against the imprimatur, you cite the three witness of Lucia dos Santos and Jacinta and Francesco Marto receiving communion under both species from the Archangel Michael. I can’t believe I am reading this comment as an example of going “against the dogma of the Church”.
Both forms are indeed valid as you elsewhere correctly state.
If one is reading / hearing the Fatima story from one of the many imprimatured documents ‘worthy of credence’ we don’t have to know why the Archangel gave the Corpus Christi to Lucia and why he gave the Chalice of the Mysterium Fidei to Jacinta and Francesco.
If we believe the witnesses are giving a true account of their experience, we don’t have to know the thinking and reasons of the Archangel Michael in order to believe their account.
If we don’t believe they are giving a true account of their experience, we still do not have to know the thinking and reasons of the Archangel Michael in order to disbelieve it. We do, however, have to know what the Church teaches about communion under both species. Whether you find this ‘odd’ or not is irrelevant.
Your opinion that this goes against the dogma of the Church is false.
’81 plane hijacker reveals Fatima obsession
https://group.irishecho.com/2011/02/81-plane-hijacker-reveals-fatima-obsession-2/
I have to question your discernment here. You’ve bought a self-published book by a Random Anonymous Author, whose identity and background is hidden, other than saying he’s a ‘Catholic Man’, and shares the name with a Spanish Conquistador from the 15th century. Why on earth do you consider this source at all reliable?
The ridiculous thing is, you’re now believing exactly what the Russian Orthodox Church teaches. Chabbad Shill Roosh has been also recently propagating Fatima as a Demonic Delusion, based upon various comments by Orthodox Priests. You have circled around and are now in spiritual alignment with the very thing you claim to be against, based upon an ignorance of what the message of Fatima teaches, when you misunderstood what a Priest was saying a few weeks back.
You’ll be able to judge the truth of Our Lady’s messages for yourself soon enough: when Russia suddenly reveals greatly-advanced weapons of war, far beyond what the western nations have, which are completely unknown to its governments. It’s very, very close.
I’d advise you then to apologize to Her and place yourself under Her mantle.
Here’s a Masonic Pamphlet from just after the Miracle of the Sun:
https://files.catbox.moe/xnr2wc.jpg
The author should not be attacked. Instead, his valid points should be addressed by Fatimists. Yet you do none of that in this comment. Your comment about RooshV and Eastern Orthodoxy is an association fallacy. Rejecting Fatima does not make one inline with Eastern Orthodoxy. That’s quite a stretch to make.
I am guessing you haven’t read Diaz’ book, yet you feel justified in automatically rejecting his arguments (which you don’t even know, apparently).
Wow, Russia’s arsenal now is associated with “Our Lady.” I just have no words for how absurd this false Russo-messianism is. You’ve completely cucked out here.
Your comments are more evidence supporting my theory that Fatima is a set up for Fatimist Catholics to accept the anti-Christ via the Perestroika Deception and Third Rome messianism.
If the author should not be attacked which is an incorrect outlook at the matter, rather, it should be treated as questioned, so if the author should not be questioned then you should take valid points of Eric Jon Phelps’s book Vatican Assassins, God Almighty how many he managed to sweep up to the coils of judeo-masonic outlook with that book, you should also take the valid points of Christopher von Bjerknes who when he was in a debate with Dennis Wise was really rude and vicious calling Dennis a clown and not any researcher and elevating himself to a status of infallible researcher and truther, you should also take valid points of Webster Tarpley with his Black Nobility claims that are circulated online breeding even more animosity for the Catholic Church and helping to perpetuate the myth that all roads lead to Rome and Rome has always been the enemy of Christianity and Catholic Church has just adopted Rome’s practices and masquerades as a Christian organization which is what almost all Protestants believe and propagate especially during these times when everything is haywire. You should also take the valid points of Fritz Springmeier, Steve Falconer with his research where he proved that the current players can all be traced back to the Peerage family lineage and have very little to do with judaism (apparently in his research) and then all the other valid points of so many other researchers out there. How about Henry Makow. Doesn’t he have valid points and yet he’s now been labeled to be a Moscow asset?… And on and on and on with all the valid points from so many valid authors. The truth is that the author does matter because you don’t know what intentions he had when he was writing the book or who he really is. How do you know his points are even valid? How do you know they are authentic and trustworthy? How is it that his identity is still obscure? Penitent is right when he says that your arguments against Fatima are in line with the Eastern Orthodox community because that’s exactly what all of them say about Fatima and the Virgin Mary’s salvific role. Like I said before, I’ve read and listened to quite a lot of them and they are nauseating. The war heads that Penitent mentions is not in context with Russo-messianism but rather what Our Lady revealed also in a message to Blessed Elena Aiello that Russia will use her secret weapons and use them against America, the West and the whole of Europe for that matter. Of course that will be allowed as a punishment for the sins of men. I have listened to Kissinger and his totally cool demeanor when talking about a war so devastating that only one victor will emerge out of it and out of the ashes the phoenix will rise so it’s highly plausible. If that’s taken in context with the book of Revelation and the 4 horses of the Apocalypse and the extintion of one third of humanity, it all fits in. I really didn’t want to write any more about Fatima as it’s really futile but I saw your argument about the author to be left out intact earlier in previous comments and I was taken aback by your stance at not taking into consideration the author. Oh yes, the author does matter. The same way as those who speak out against convid do matter because there are many who act as controlled opposition either to perpetuate the myth of germ-theory or to lead people to New Age spirituality so authors and speakers do matter a great deal. I’m sure Timothy you will come up with very sharp arguments to this comment of mine. In some ways it feels like going back and forth with Protestants or even the Orthodox when discussing contentious topics which shoudn’t even be contentious but they are because we are in a war against truth and even more so now than ever before.
Christine, you are using false analogies. Bernal Diaz is a Catholic. You’re telling me Catholics shouldn’t have to prove their positions to other Catholics? If you can’t defend your Fatima position, then it’s probably too weak to be defended and you should reconsider its validity. Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have very similar teachings on the Virgin Mary.
You speak as if they are at complete odds. The main difference is that Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But almost everything else is the same. Fatimist are trying to rationalize how a Catholic could reject Fatima, so they resort to just dismissing it as resorting to Eastern Orthodoxy. But that’s a cop out. I accept the Immaculate Conception.
Did you ever consider that many would-be Catholics have not left Eastern Orthodoxy because of how they perceive some Catholics’ hyper-Mariology? Same story with Protestants. The devil certainly uses these Marian excesses to keep away would-be converts.
Your association fallacy: You reject Fatima and Eastern Orthodox reject Fatima; therefore, you hold an Eastern Orthodox position. FALSE.
On another note, please break up your text into paragraphs. it’s very difficult to read huge blocks of text.
Timothy, your point on breaking a text into paragraphs is taken. I will do my best. I’m not used to writing a comment in paragraphs. I do it in other forms of communication but not in comments but I understand that when it’s long it can be difficult to read and absorb. I was already told off for that by someone else so I’ll remedy that. I also apologize for not being able to change the format of letters differentiating your sentences from mine. I’ll separate them then by gaps and the inverted commas. Ok, so let’s begin breaking down your comment point by point.
“Christine, you are using false analogies”.
No I’m not. That’s your view of it.
“Bernal Diaz is a Catholic. You’re telling me Catholics shouldn’t have to prove their positions to other Catholics?”
I’m NOT doing anything of the sort. Again, it’s your view of it. Unfortunately. This is what I meant in my previous comments when I said that you are misconstruing my message.
The argument used that Bernal Diaz is a Catholic bears little weight because in today’s religious and spiritual climate, it really doesn’t mean much to say I’m a Catholic. Did you know that Bill and Melinda Gates claim they are a Catholic? That Joe pedo Biden claims he is a Catholic? Ok, that’s a bit too much of a stretch to use them as an example but it shows that anybody can claim they are a Catholic. That’s my point. How about E. Michael Jones? He too is a Catholic and yet what has been unearthed about him working alongside personas like Dugin who is a Crowleyite is highly disturbing to say the least. A person like E. Michael Jones who is so well read and into research should know only too well what it means to worship someone like Aleister Crowley as Dugin does. E. Michael Jones wrote some very good books especially The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit but one can’t just get stuck with that, can he/she given the times we are in…? I could cite many more of such examples. Please, understand what I’m saying here. Don’t take it out of context yet again. Just because Diaz claims he is a Catholic does not mean that it’s really so and that this claim should somehow validate his dubious points that he raised in his book regarding Fatima. Like I said before, how do you know that his claims are from reliable sources, that he has no ulterior motives, that he is honest, that he is even a true Catholic? Etc, etc, etc.
“If you can’t defend your Fatima position, then it’s probably too weak to be defended and you should reconsider its validity.”
I have defended my Fatima position. YOU see it as my inability to do so. What I will concede to though, is, that I probably can’t get my position of defense across in a highly eloquent manner, say as lindesymonds has done for instance. I convey my message across in very simplistic terms and maybe that’s where the problem lies. In that case I’ll put it into the hands of those few who are gifted with that talent of eloquence and lecturing and preaching. At the end of this comment I’ll leave a link to the video of a person who I’m not sure whether he is a priest or a lay person but he managed to put the whole importance, the whole message of Fatima and other important issues dealing not only with Fatima but also regarding the person and role of the Blessed Virgin Mary, in their true perspective and light. He’s basically put almost all the points that some of us have been trying to explain to you here in the comments about Fatima but not only about Fatima but also about the role the Holy Virgin Mary plays especially during these end times.
“Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have very similar teachings on the Virgin Mary. You speak as if they are at complete odds. The main difference is that Eastern Orthodox don’t accept the Immaculate Conception. But almost everything else is the same.”
Actually, Catholics and Orthodox do have more differences about the Blessed Virgin Mary than it appears at first glance. Catholics do believe that the BVM is the Woman who crushed the head of the serpent as is written in Genesis 3:14-15. Orthodox don’t believe that. Neither do they believe that She was taken body and soul into Heaven. They believe that She is in Heaven but not that She was assumed into Heaven with Her body. Also as you pointed out, they don’t believe in the Immaculate Conception. Their view is that She is Theotokos, Mother of God but they don’t believe for instance that She is the Arc of the New Covenant, that She is the Woman in Apocalypse 12 fighting with the dragon. They don’t believe that She is the Mediatrix through whom all graces flow whereas Catholics do. That person is going to address all those important issues in that video and I ask humbly that you please watch it and listen to it.
“Fatimist are trying to rationalize how a Catholic could reject Fatima, so they resort to just dismissing it as resorting to Eastern Orthodoxy. But that’s a cop out. I accept the Immaculate Conception.”
No, that’s not what we are doing at all. Again, that’s how you view it. The arguments you use against the BVM happen to be the same used by the Eastern Orthodox and because the points that Eastern Orthodox refuse happen to be contained also in the message of Fatima, coincidentally you then act as the Orthodox. But you see, it’s not only Fatima. Like I said earlier on in my previous comments. You would have to refuse many other apparitions not only Fatima because your belief about BVM is not actually what Catholics believe but is very much aligned with the belief of the Orthodox with only one exception and that is the Immaculate Conception. You’d have to reject Our Lady of Good Success as well which is also a fully approved apparition and is more pertaining to our times than ever before just as it was prophesied it would be. As I mentioned before, Marian Horvath explained that Our Lady of Good Success and Our Lady of Fatima share striking similarities as to the message and the essence.
“Did you ever consider that many would-be Catholics have not left Eastern Orthodoxy because of how they perceive some Catholics’ hyper-Mariology? Same story with Protestants. The devil certainly uses these Marian excesses to keep away would-be converts.”
I’m well aware of the hard to swallow dogmas and teachings regarding the person of the BVM when it comes to Orthodox and even more so the Protestants. Have you considered then that you might not have converted to Catholicism as it may seem to you that you have since you reject those teachings? Have you read St Louis de Montfort’s 3 important books which are all aligned with the teaching of the Church regarding the BVM? 1. The Secret of Rosary 2. The Secret of Mary ( I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS ONE ESPECIALLY FOR YOU) 3. The True Devotion to Mary. If that’s considered hyper-Mariology which I know it is in the Orthodox and Protestant circles but it happens to be regarded as such by you as well, then you really need to ask yourself whether you have really converted to Catholicism or you just think you have but on your terms and therefore retaining many of the Orthodox teachings within you. Yes, the devil keeps many away from Catholicism on account of what they perceive to be the Marian excesses because he knows only too well that once Her person and Her role is understood in the TRUE light, his domain would begin to crumble.
“Your association fallacy: You reject Fatima and Eastern Orthodox reject Fatima; therefore, you hold an Eastern Orthodox position. FALSE.”
I agree. It’s false because I don’t do anything of the sort. I already explained that in higher paragraphs.
I think the biggest problem around Fatima revolves around issue with Russia and especially its conversion. Because you know about the Perestroika deception plan you immediately and uncompromisingly jump into conclusion that it plays right into the grand deception. We are in the season of the coming of the Antichrist on the world stage. The whole infrastructure is ready for him, the Beast system is ready to go full steam ahead. That’s why the conversion of Russia cannot happen before. However, things will be restored after the defeat of the Antichrist and the Beast system. It wasn’t prophesied only by Fatima but by quite a few other Catholic Saints and mystics. Trouble is that you refuse those prophesies on the grounds of eschatology which has been left pretty much in obscurity for quite a long time. I would highly recommend one more source for that which would shed a lot of light and put things in their right perspective as to the proper eschatology but I’m not going to mention its name here in the comments. I have my reasons for doing so. I could pass it on in the email to you but not here in the public comments.
Here is that video link from defeatmodernism channel and the points some of us have been trying to raise in defense of the true message of Fatima but not only Fatima. Please DO give it a go. Like I explained earlier on, I do not have the talent to convey the apologies in a highly eloquent manner but this person does have that skill so please listen to it carefully and watch it as well and hopefully it will be you who will reconsider your position as to the whole “dilema” or rather the controversy that surrounds Fatima and will be able to see as some of us do who have been coming in defense of it. The link to the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f39kXqlJqsM
So what words reported by Sr Lucia (source) of Our Lady at Fatima specifically are heretical and against the magisterium of what the Church has always and everywhere taught?
Just to be clear, your opinion on Fatima is scandalous at worst, the Church has never imposed private revelation on anyone. But I would try to reply to some of your criticisms.
“Did you ever consider that many would-be Catholics have not left Eastern Orthodoxy because of how they perceive some Catholics’ hyper-Mariology? Same story with Protestants. The devil certainly uses these Marian excesses to keep away would-be converts.”
Hmm, sounds familiar. How about “Did you ever consider that many would-be Catholics have not left Judaism because of how they perceive some Catholics’ anti-Semitism”? I recalled St. Louis de Montfort: “These doctors speak but rarely of thy holy Mother, and of the devotion which we ought to have to her, because they fear, so they say, lest we should abuse it, and should do some injury to Thee in too much honouring Thy holy Mother.”
You criticise the Blessed Mother because She complained of sins against Her. Well, St. Gabriel punished Zachary because he did not believe in him, because here he’s speaking on God’s behalf. Since Our Lady is so intimately united with God, so are sins against God and sins against Her. John 10:34: “Jesus answered them: Is it not written in your law: I said you are gods?”
You said: “She asked the children to sacrifice themselves for sinners, which is contrary to Christ.” Well St. Paul teaches just the opposite: “Who [St. Paul] now rejoice in my sufferings for you and fill up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh, for his body, which is the church.” (Colossians 1:24)
If Fatima is deceptive, where people are misled on secular events but in turn increases their fevour to Our Lady, I don’t see how it is a bargain to the Devil.
But what if Fatima was Satanic/demonic? Wouldn’t be scandalous then, now would it? It would be edifying, rather.
Marian excesses are real. “Anti-Semitism” is made up. Know the difference.
At no point did I criticize the Virgin Mary. If I am wrong about Fatima, then it wouldn’t be Mary that I was criticizing but a false perception of demonic activity. Our sins against God are sins against her? Really? You’re going to play these mental gymnastics again? It never ends, does it? Unfortunately for you, you do not have Biblical or traditional backing for these fallacious arguments.
Taking Paul completely out of context to support an obvious heresy.
This has gotten so far that you actually believe “increasing fervour to Our Lady” is the goal here. The goal is Christ. PERIOD! Modernism has so infected the Church that she has lost the simplicity of the Gospel, which is Christ alone.
“Marian excesses are real. “Anti-Semitism” is made up.” – Give me some example of saints or popes that have complained about such excesses, unless it is or approach the level of heresy. One could argue that there is legit “anti-Semitism”, such as blame them for things they are not guilty of.
“Our sins against God are sins against her? Really?… Unfortunately for you, you do not have Biblical or traditional backing for these fallacious arguments.” – I’ll quote an apparition cited by St. Alphonsus in his book ‘The glories of Mary,’ p. 87: “Helen, you have too long offended God and me; henceforth change your life…” Common sense tells us the same thing, if one outrages Her Son, of course one would outrages the Mother also.
“Taking Paul completely out of context to support an obvious heresy.” – Which heresy? “What St. Paul means is that many sufferings are still wanting and needed for the members of the Church to work out their salvation, which was all made possible by Christ’s sacrifice.” I don’t see how you would condemn that without overturn the whole Church history altogether, of how many saints offer tremendous mortifications and sacrifices to win grace for other.
“The goal is Christ. PERIOD! Modernism has so infected the Church that she has lost the simplicity of the Gospel, which is Christ alone.” By your definition, St. Louis de Montfort must have been a modernist (but I doubt if you consider him a saint since he was canonized by Pope Pius XII), quoted from his book True Devotion to Mary:
“All the true children of God, the predestinate, have God for their Father, and Mary for their Mother. He who has not Mary for his Mother, has not God for his Father. This is the reason why the reprobate, such as heretics, schismatics, and others, who hate our Blessed Lady, or regard her with contempt and indifference, have not God for their Father, however much they boast of it, simply because they have not Mary for their Mother. For if they had her for their Mother, they would love and honour her as a true and good child naturally loves and honours the mother who has given him life.”
You are pretty much deifying Mary by saying that you cannot have the Holy Trinity without the Mother.
No where in Scripture does it say “He who has not Mary for his Mother, has not God for his Father.” This is a teaching of man, not of God. Teachings of men are of no effect and are null and void. It seems you are trying to overly reason out everything to the point where you reduce God so that you can contain Him in your finite human understanding.
But according to you guys, it’s impossible to venerate Mary too much. Even Novus Ordites claim this. So anything goes, when it comes to Mary. One can never go too far, right? You just have to play the semantics game of adoration vs. veneration.
The same Alphonsus Liguori who established 30 different ways of swearing falsely without guilt?
Maybe if you spent more time quoting our Lord rather than questionable apparitions, you wouldn’t be confused as to Mary’s proper position.
St. Alphonsus is a great theologian, canonized by the Church.
If you don’t believe the Church is infallible, then why are you posing as Catholic?
Reductionism, CRV. No where did I say that. Let me guess, you’re sedevacantist. And why are you posting under different names? Seems unCatholic to me.
Can you provide a reference(s) to the document(s) where St. Alphonsus Liguori established 30 different way of swearing falsely without guilt? I would like to learn about his justifications.
If the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary would save all of Russia and usher in a great Catholic revival, it genuinely begs the question why the Popes haven’t done it. Do the Popes want the Orthodox to suffer? According to Roman Catholic dogma Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus or No Salvation outside of the Catholic Church, the longer the Popes prolong this consecration, the more Orthodox go to hell. When Fatimists and Traditional Catholics state that the consecration of Russia hasn’t been done, most are unaware that they are implicitly accusing Benedict XV-Francis 1 guilty of conspiracy who are aware that their refusal to consecrate Russia to the IHOM sends souls of Orthodox Christians to hell. If Fatima is of God, why hasn’t the Catholic Church “saved the Orthodox” these past 104 years if the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Catholic Church?
Interesting points, George. For me, the Fatimists miserably fail at explaining how the consecration of Russia can happen practically speaking. As I keep saying, to heal the schism would require the Eastern Orthodox to at least admit the primacy of the Pope and acceptance of the Filioque. Is there any indication of this actually happening? Russians are taught to hate the Catholic Church and the West. Their rejection of the Filioque seems to be a deep rooted heresy that would be extremely difficult to shake off—going all the way back to Byzantium, when they were defeated on the very day of Pentecost by the brutal Mohammedans. There is no sign of a consecration of Russia happening legitimately. The only way that an appearance of this can happen, as far as I can see, is via anti-Christ one-world Noahidism. The Great Schism will be “healed” by way of Noahidism—all religions coming together. But this does not require Eastern Orthodox to accept the Filioque.
Jewish false convert Jacob Frank’s daughter Eve:
“Eve Frank received the name of Eve in 1760 upon the conversion of her family to Catholicism. For much of her life, she accompanied her father during his travels and after the death of her mother in 1770, the then 16-year-old Eve was declared to be the incarnation of the Shekinah, the female aspect of God, as well as the reincarnation of the Virgin Mary and thus became the object of a devotional subcult herself near the Catholic Marian shrine of Częstochowa”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Frank
The Frankists had influence especially among Polish Catholicism. JP2 is believed to have been a Jew, Mason, and Frankist. He is also known as one of the most Marian popes, calling himself “totally yours” (Mary’s). This definitely needs to be investigated.
Was just there a few weeks ago, for sure something is off. Strong Orthodox “vibeZ” in Częstochowa!
No good.
Jacob Frank had purported visions that sounds eerily similar to the Fatima prophecies of chastisement and religious revival. I quote from the blog Zoharist Stories (A Frankist Catholic) blog:
“Jacob Frank saw himself in the role of a new Jeremiah called to knock down and destroy, and then to build and to plant. He was a trail blazer whose work would bear fruit in the future. He foresaw the destruction of European Jewry and saw that their salvation lay with the Catholic Church who in accord with Rabbinic tradition he called Esau or Edom. The Virgin of the Zohar the Matronita would lead them to become nothing -to die to Rabbinic Judaism and rise to Messianic freedom in the Catholic faith. He saw a future pure and humble Universal Messianic Religion that would come forth from the present Catholic Church. He saw a great Ecumenical Church that would through the Virgin’s leading usher in a universal era of peace where the hidden mysticism of the Zohar would be fully understood and deepened as the Torah of Atzilut (Torah of Atik).” https://zohariststories.blogspot.com/2019/09/hebrew-christians-and-crypto-jewish.html
“He foresaw a united Catholic Europe under a Great Catholic Monarch called Messiah ben Ephraim (or Messiah ben Joseph) a Catholic descendant of King David and a descendant of the Stuart Kings. He foresaw the coming a Great French Pope and saw the French return to their position as the eldest daughter of the Church. He also foresaw the role of the Russian Orthodox Church in bringing about the unity of East and West. He sought to dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian Czar who visited him. He foresaw the destruction that Russia and the Muslims would inflict before the Virgin would lead them into the bosom of the new and purified universal Church. He tried to dialogue with the Muslims involved in mystical circles that had much in common with the Frankist mystics.” https://zohariststories.blogspot.com/2019/09/jacob-frank-and-zoharist-catholic.html
In 1765, after being imprisoned by the Catholic authorities, Frank became close with the Russian Orthodox Church and when the Russians freed him, he began to speak about revolution and wanted to see the Catholic Church overthrown. Accompanied by his daughter Eve, Frank repeatedly traveled to Vienna, and succeeded in gaining the favor of the Hapsburg court. The pious Maria Theresa regarded him as a disseminator of Christianity among the Jews, and it is even said that Joseph II was favorably inclined to the young Eve Frank. https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6279-frank-jacob-and-the-frankists
This isn’t too surprising considering the house of Habsburg is arguably of Jewish origin. https://www.jta.org/archive/jewish-blood-runs-in-hapsburg-family-nazi-sleuth-finds.
“Jacob Frank said that the reason that Poland was the first place that the Frankists chose to become Catholics is because they were the nation that understood the Mother best (The “Divine Feminine” of Gnostics, the Mystery Schools & Kabbalah, of course, not the Virgin Mary). The Papal Frankists who went to Ireland were to bring this intense Marian focus with them and under the Papal Frankist priests, Bishops, nuns and laity they inaugurated a new era of Marian fervour in Irish Catholicism. It was the hidden Frankists in the Church of Europe that pushed for the dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Papal infallibility.
At the same time the Masonic Sabbatean-Frankists were working to oppose the agendas of the Papal Frankists and were working for an occultic, masonic and modernist takeover of the structures of the Catholic Church. However, by the late 1800’s families from both sides were starting to forget their Jewish and Frankist origins, identity and customs and had assimilated fully into the Gentile cultures of Church and State. Jacob Frank had sought permission for the Frankists to maintain openly their Jewish customs and practices in the Church as a Jewish rite similar to the Chinese rites proposed by the Jesuits in China. However, the anti-semitic and anti-Jesuit forces in the Church of the 18th century prevailed on the Bishops to deny this request. This was when Frank decided that the Frankists must remain in silence and hiddenness as a Jewish mystical leaven in the Church to prepare it to become the Church of the new era that would be truly mystical and universal.” (Fatima’s Peace Plan)
https://zohariststories.blogspot.com/2019/09/frankists-and-catholic-church.html?m=1
Wow, can you imagine if the Fatima apparition were actually a Zoharian “virgin” spirit? Excellent find. Thanks for posting. Many Catholics would be attempting to fulfill a Zoharian prophecy using demons. What a feat for the devil.
Incredible. I had no idea about this.
Christ said He came not to bring peace (although we get true peace from knowing Him). In contrast, the Fatima apparition supposedly came to bring peace.
I wonder why Michael Hoffman never examined this in his book Occult Renaissance Church of Rome.
I find it interesting that Michael Hoffman’s book The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome had much to criticize about St. Alphonsus’ Mariology in the 18th century, but there was no mention of Jacob Frank’s syncretic Mariological theories which merged the Roman Catholic cult of the Virgin Mary in its specifically Polish form of the Black Madonna in Częstochowa (where Frank was incarcerated for twelve years) with Jewish kabbalistic concepts of Shekhinah (god’s omnipresence; grammatically feminine).
The book seems to drop off from the hermetic conspiracy in the 15th century straight into Vatican II, (unintentionally?) omitting key events in the Roman Catholic Church such as the Chinese rites controversy of Matteo Ricci (Jesuit religious syncretism condemned by the Vatican), the suppression of the Jesuits in the 1770’s by Clement XIV (https://www.dropbox.com/s/zllqjry0cizebip/Clemente%20XiV%20Dominus%20ac%20Redemptor.pdf?dl=0), Frankism, to name a few.
Anyways, back to Jacob Frank’s Mariology –
Jacob Frank, in his own writings, describes this feminine divine presence on Earth as “the gateway to God, and only through her is it possible to read God.”
As summarized by author Pawel Maciejko, “Frankism was not about a male God who took a human body upon himself through a human woman (the Roman Catholic belief), but about a feminine goddess who acquired a human form. For Frank, the Black Madonna of Czestochowa became not merely a depiction of the sacred femininity but the site of her actual “indwelling.” Frank’s coming to Czestochowa was “to liberate” the Maiden from the icon and thus to bring the revelation of divine femininity to accomplishment. As Frank announced, when this happened, the “Maiden who is there [that is, the miraculous icon] . . . will lead you [the Frankists] to another Maiden.”
Jacob Frank harbored an extreme hatred of the Roman Catholic clergy. One of the main tenets of the Zoharist (Frankist) sect was “that the overthrow of the papal throne is the sign of the coming of the Messiah, their chief belief consists of this.”
Polish Frankism’s Duration – From Cabbalistic Judaism to Roman Catholicism and from
Jewishness to Polishness pg. 308. https://archive.org/details/PolishFrankismduker/mode/1up
The Frankist’s conversion to Christianity was to serve as a means to achieve Christianity’s ultimate defeat. “The only reason I came to Poland was to wipe out all laws and all religions, and my desire is to bring life to the world” (Divrei haAdon, no. 130).
Fatima
Fatima was given the title, al-Zahra, “shining one,” and Mohammed once said about her, “Thou shalt be the most blessed of all the women in Paradise, after Mary.” Surprisingly, besides attracting Christian pilgrims, the shrine at Fatima, Portugal, has also attracted Muslims in great numbers. According to Traditionalist (perennialist) Iranian historian Seyyed Hossein Nasr:
“[Sophia I.E., the devil] has often manifested herself as a woman of celestial beauty and was identified by many sages and saints with the Virgin Mary in the same way that among some of the Muslim sages wisdom appeared as a beautiful celestial figure identified with Fatima, the daughter of the Prophet, and a “second Mary” within the more specific context of the Islamic tradition.” https://ordoabchao.ca/volume-two/redemption-through-sin
Interestingly, a talisman popular in parts of the Middle East and North Africa is alternately referred to as “Fatima’s Hand” or “Maryam’s Hand”, to drive evil away.
Interesting, George. Although I believe the doctrine of the Immacculate Conception, I am not sure that it should’ve been formalized (dogmatized) and perhaps that is why the Early Church left it be. I see many Catholics whom I perceive as going too far with their Marian devotions to the point of heresy (the Early Church was extremely careful with forming dogma). Fatima has only supercharged this tendency in some. In Church, someone once asked me why everyone flocks to the statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary and few, if any, pray before the statue of Jesus. I didn’t have a sufficient answer. This is very troubling. I think it’s more evidence of the imbalance and outright heresy going on among some parishioners. Defenders of this imbalance respond with the usual mental gymnastics of how through Mary we come to Jesus, as if Jesus can never be imagined or depicted without His mother—evidently making God semi-autonomous or even subordinate to His mother.
These revelations of yours suggest that there is more going on with Fatima than meets the eye.
*A slight correction to my previous comment – Jacob Frank didn’t develop a Mariology but an aberration of authentic Catholic Mariology: “While other kabbalists had hinted at the parallels between the concept of the shekhinah and the Christian devotion to the Virgin Mary before Frank, only he was bold enough to postulate transformation of the former into the latter.” An Excursus on Frankism (theomagica.com)
“Frank was to have personal apparitions of the Lady while imprisoned in the fortress of Czestochowa which further developed the Frankist Marian theology. Those devoted to this Lady were able in union with her to perform complete or universal acts of reparation. Frank himself was slandered, misinterpreted and condemned by many in both the Catholic and Jewish communities of the 18th century (and even today).” Article – Influence of Jacob Frank and the Frankists and The Zoharic Lady of Reparation
Oddly enough, numerous mainstream Catholic websites state that the “Key to the Fatima Message Can be Found in Reparation.”
The whole thing just stinks, doesn’t it?
Very Good that you have posted the Novus Ordo Watch link on your Twitter re: ‘Francis to Consecrate Russia and Ukraine” to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
https://novusordowatch.org/2022/03/francis-to-consecrate-russia-and-ukraine/
Yes. A bogus consecration is afoot. And it will stand in the tradition of Novus Ordo of bogus consecrations of Russia to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart. The last one, I think, had no mention of Russia. Undoubtedly The Perestroika Deception has ‘factored in’ the Official Fatima Narrative of the Counter Catholic Church.
Francis I is an Actor. He is the Acting Pope No. 2 – acting in the office of the papacy. Pope Benedict XVI never abdicated the office (munus) . Francis does not have the power of the Keys.
Our Lady stated at the Cova da Iria on July 13, 1917 that to prevent the Divine Wrath and punishment of the world for its crimes: “by means of war, famine and persecution of the Church” she would come to ask for the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart…
The important historical note here is that no Armistice for WWII ever was signed. It was the springboard for the permanent , world-wide Revolution – the secret of the Perestroika Deception according to Anatoliy Golitsyn.
This bogus consecration will probably entail a visit to Moscow and after that I think we will see all hell let loose against the Church and probably the Grand Finale of WWII which our Lady clearly foretold.
I point out that even the false question concerning the munus regarding the renunciation of BXVI does not make sense canonically, as well as no criteria of “sede impedita” is respected. Even here between the heretic BXVI (see Amerio and Radaelli) and Francis the game is always the bounce between the two poles. All to foster the clash between traditionalists and modernists. Here in Italy it would be like saying when in the 70’s and 80’s we had the Sicilian war within Cosa Nostra: Corleone vs. Palermo, but it was always mafia. But the big bosses of the Mafia were the secret service. Who are the leaders between the communist right and left?
Cecil Rhodes had in mind the reabsorption of the USA by merging them with Canada under the crown of England. The two poles remain exactly the same. Of course everything seems to lead to the predominance of the Eurasian pole, but Golitsyn ignored the typical Trotskyite hatred that permeates the U.S. now covertly towards the Stalinists to whom he was referring.It’s all about who can benefit. The Eurasian pole world is not yet the world government, it is only a stage.
I am only here to write that Pius X was the architect of the distortion of the CVI by abusing the papal primacy and thus destroying the Roman breviary and liturgical chants, laying the groundwork for the bureaucratic distortion of canon law in 1917. All this led to the modification of the liturgical rubrics of the Holy Mass, which were totally rewritten in 1960. Not to mention the abuses of Pius XII.
Moreover, post-enlightenment traditionalism is full of pernicious heresies highly specular to modernist heresies,necessary to the dialectical advancement in the bipolar clash, just look at hypersacerdotalization, humanistic devotions, rationalism, ultramontanism, canonical derubrication, political interests, sentimentalism, mariolatry and so on.
Moreover, I would like to point out that a conversion of Orthodoxy to Catholicism, given the post-CVII synodalism, would allow a total justification of Eurasianism and complete trust in it. Shall we recall the meeting in Cuba between Francis and Kirill?
As far as I am concerned Fatima is irrelevant, but in any case its instrumentalization is very effective.
Daouda, what do you mean “humanistic devotions”, sentimentalism, and canonical derubrication?
As far as deviant devotions are concerned, first of all we have feasts of concept or abstraction, such as Christ’s kingship, which are separated from historical Revelation and take on an entirely ideological and rationalistic flavor.
Secondly, celebrations concerning the precious blood, the sufferings of the Blessed Virgin or the sacred hearts of the Deipara Mary and Jesus GOD himself (the latter two being the fruit of Franciscan “dolorismo” or Jesuit crypto-Nestorianism) are sentimentalistic aberrations with which the Sulpicians have wearied us.
But it is not surprising since the same sacred art from the Renaissance onwards assumed a purely anthropocentric aspect, so much so that the same Christian meditation passed to the spiritual imagination of Ignatius of Loyola, old alumbrado.
We all know that already from the Middle Ages if it was forbidden to consume food in the penitential period before Vespers, well, Vespers was anticipated instead of close to sunset exactly at the ninth hour.
The same daily Holy Mass, forcibly encouraged by Pius X, is an anti-spiritual habit, although fools say otherwise, as is the anti-traditional evening Mass.
For canonical derubrications great importance had the never closed Vatican Council I, which led to the papal supremacy already carried out since the beginning of the second millennium with Gregory VII. The code of 1917 stands as a basic reference that submits to itself the same ecumenical councils, it would be enough to understand how, for example, the canons of Nicea I and Constantinople I do not admit the papal supremacy and are cleverly contradicted, as usually the pope as a bishop if he commits sins in the sexual sphere, usury or murder (even as a principal, explain it to the defenders of the Renaissance popes) is not only reduced to the lay state but excommunicated, they say that the pope is exempt misintepreting Gratian so much so that today these canons are obscured and precisely overlooked.
In any case, I was also referring to equiprobabilism and casuism.
I wanted to ask you Timothy if you are Catholic. I thought you were an Orthodox follower of the Russian Church in exile against Kirill. For goodness sake I am Catholic, but certain Orthodox positions cannot be denied ( besides they are not Orthodox in themselves, but ecclesial heritage ). As far as I am concerned, I consider the neo-patristic movement among the Orthodox even more stupid than our sedevacantists who were influenced by Guenonism. No one will be able to accuse me of Photianism since for me Constantinople is not a patriarchate and the Pentarchy was a subversion of the Petrine Tetrarchy.
Buona giornata
I was lurking in Eastern Orthodoxy but am now Roman Catholic.
But are you a sedevacantist, a FSSPX kind of guy (we believe the church is legitimate and that Francis is the Pope, but the vatican II council sucks and don’t go to a Novus Ordo Mass plz) or just a Novus Ordo Conservative?
Also, I really recommend you the podcast of Logos Triumphant by speckzo and pinesap for information about theology and catholicism, just ignore their America First and political pozzed stuff.
R&R.
Good article. What you write makes perfect sense. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when people make it into one. The devil works in many ways.
Where can I get a copy of this book
Amazon, look the book up. The Lady of Fatima and the Antichrist.
Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea – The Consecration Will Not Be Accepted [ by Heaven ]
March 25, 2022
Soldiers of the Immaculate
The next part of our Lady’s prophecy of July 13, 1917 is “certain nations will be annihilated”.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/BojSPZ5UyFXM/
I hope the Roman Catholics are planning to do a First Saturday on April 2. This Lent: – true contrition for all the sins with which we have offended our Lord, good confession, worthy reparation and amendment of life. And we should continue to pray for the consecration of Russia to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart by the Holy Father and all the bishops. For this to happen, I think it should now be evident, our Lord will restore His Church.
Acting Pope No. 2 Francis [ who is not in communion with Pope No. 1 in terms of doctrine ] I has just made a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at St. Peter’s on the Feast of the Annunciation, March 25.
I have never heard that St. Peter’s was reconsecrated after pagan idols were processed into the basilica and ‘reverenced’ by the bishops at the Amazonian Synod. A few weeks ago there was an invitation to the bishops to make a consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary – a list of priorities (and yes Russia is on it) so that is an improvement on the consecrations where Russia was not even mentioned. The consecration prayer , on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, makes no reference to the only name given under Heaven by Whom men can be saved: the Lord Jesus Christ. Maybe like Russia it was in there somewhere – if so, my apologies, I got it wrong. But on my reading, the consecration prayer ticks the boxes for Mariolatry / Pachamama devotion decried on this website.
What about praying that Russia is consecrated to God? Wouldn’t that make more sense? Wouldn’t that be the more reasonable thing for which to pray?
I agree with the article and personally I don’t believe in any consecration of Russia because time and time again it hasn’t stopped any war.
I knew Fatima was Muhammad’s daughter but to say Fatima and Mary are the same thing is very serious and a big bullshit that I personally suspect not only comes from Russia but also from Iran because Shia Muslims look at Fatima in a special way unlike Sunnis.
I consider the prophecy of Fatima and the daughter of Muhammad not the same thing so it is useless for the Catholic Church to promote the myth.
The author is not saying that Mohammed’s daughter Fatima and Mary are the same. I think what he is saying is that Islamic myths have fused with modern Catholic beliefs somewhat.
Agreed but the problem is that the Catholic church has fallen into apostasy believing that Fatima is the Virgin Mary but the truth is not so and it is not simple: She is not the Fatima of Islam but was another Fatima it was said was the name of a Moorish princess kidnapped by a knight, Gonçalo Hermigues, and his companions. Hermigues took her to a small village in the hills of the Serra de Aire in the newly established Kingdom of Portugal. According to the Western Catholic narrative, Fatima fell in love with her captor and decided to convert to Christianity and marry him. She was baptized and given the Christian name Oureana.
The fact remains that ironically Fatima is not even a Muslim city but a Catholic one.
The organised and determined effort to infiltrate the Church by the Synagogue (of Satan) and its organised forces has been underway since the Books of James and Jude. Its offices and structures of the Church Militant have always been under assault and in contention. And clearly over the timeline of two millennia there were times when the enemies of the Church were in control of various offices and structures.
In the twentieth century the entire organisational structure of the Church was capitulated to its enemies by the Infiltration. I refer to Vatican Council II and the establishment of the counter church within the Catholic body.
Ecumenism is condemned by the Church in many documents. But it is a pre-eminent doctrine of the Novus Ordo and John Paul II (Antipope) and Cardinal Kasper have always been the leading exponents.
Our Lady of the Holy Rosary – the title which our Lady gave to herself when she appeared near the village of Fatima 1917 (more specifically the Cova da Iria on the Serra da Aire near the village of Fatima) – was the subject of many publications by the bishops, priests and religious of the Church universally right up until Vatican II. In the writings on the prophecies she made, writings which were published under imprimatur , it clear that “conversion of Russia” was understood to mean conversion of Russia as a nation to the Catholic faith and baptism into the Catholic Church. According to the universal , constant magisterium of what the Church has always and everywhere taught, it could have no other meaning.
This prophecy is clearly falsifiable. If the consecration of Russia to our Lady’s Immaculate Heart is done – this is the result which will follow.
And we have an infallible indicator. That is the official abortion rate in the Soviet Union / Russian Federation. In keeping with the ‘errors of Russia’ to which our Lady referred, the USSR and Russian Federation has always been the world leader – year after year, the highest abortion rate in the world. They always are at the top of the stats.
Ergo. Either the consecration was not done according to the clear terms requested. Or. The report of the event of our Lady’s appearance is false.
With this latest attempt “to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary by the Holy Father and all the bishops in a solemn, public consecration” – we have Pope No. 2 acting in the papal office making the consecration. Pope No. 1, Benedict who holds the papal office itself was nowhere to be seen. The bishops were invited to join in the consecration – so not all of them made the consecration with Acting Pope No. 2.
If this meets the clear terms of our Lady’s request , look at the Russian abortion stats as the first indicator of ‘the conversion of Russia.’
I think some of the problems that you authors have with the Fatima message is that the true message of Fatima has been obscured by falsehood following the Montini-directed removal of Sr Lucia dos Santos from her Dorothean convent in 1948 and her subsequent replacement with one or more imposters.
I am convinced that Sr Lucia dos Santos was unwillingly transferred out of her community, as the local Bishop and her Priest fought on her behalf against the transfer. Stories about her always wanting to be a Carmelite seem to be popular myths to explain the transfer.
You can find more information out at diesilli.com and srlucytruth.org. After reading the former I am convinced that the 1957 interviews of Fr Fuentes were not with the real Sr Lucy and as such should be disregarded.
The more the rumours swirl about the alleged suppression of the so called Fatima secrets, the more credibility the Fatima narrative gets due to its adherents seeing the supposed conspiracy as proof of its authenticity.
The facts we know from many sources are that Sr. Lucia of Fatima received papal permission from Pope Pius XII to transfer from the Convent of the Dorthean Sisters in Tui, Pontevedra, Spain 1948 to the Carmelite Convent at Coimbra , Spain. She made her profession as a Discalced Carmelite in May 1949.
She had previously met Pope Pius XII when he was Cardinal Pacelli and as both Cardinal and Pope, Pacelli took a keen interest in our Lady’s appearance to the shepherd children of the Cova near Fatima Portugal 1917.
As a Dorthean Sister and a Carmelite, Sr. Lucia continued to have appointments with Vatican representatives, the postulator for the causes of her cousins and her Fr Confessor. All of these knew her personally and none of these were under any vow of silence. Many have written freely of their meetings and correspondence with her.
Sr Lucia wrote her memoirs while she was still a Dorthean Sister 1942 and at the command of her Bishop wrote down that part of our Lady’s confidence to her July 13 1917 which she had omitted from her memoirs – that was in 1944. All of this was before she made her profession as a Carmelite..
Clearly the Carmelite sister who spoke with Fr Augustin Fuentes Dec 26 1957 in her final prophetic interview is not the same person who appeared at the Fatima Fests of the Novus Ordo popes – clapping, waving, singing and chatting and posing for the photo ops.
Reading between the lines of the Fr Fuentes interview regarding our Lady’s confidence of July 13, 1917 – it is about the Great Apostasy in the Church. The ‘secret’ was to be published at her death or 1960 – whichever came first. Why 1960? Because, as she said, it would become clearer then..
In context of Sr Lucia’s discussion with Fr Fuentes on the final conflict between Satan and the Woman who crushes the head of the serpent, they touch on the province of the Third Secret – although not specifically by that name.
As a Carmelite sister, Sr Lucia’s religious name was: Sr Maria Lucia of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart. In her interview with Fr. Fuentes, she stated “Fr., the devil knows what most offends God and what will gain for him in the shortest space of time the greatest number of souls”. Well. What is it that most offends God? The Catechism of the Council of Trent isn’t exactly silent on this point. What most offends God is apostasy from the faith. What has become ‘clearer’ since 1960? – oh… maybe the apostasy of virtually the entire hierarchy of the Church from the faith.
Or as Sr Lucia puts it: “Thus the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them.” It is not as though we haven’t lived this Revolution or Revolt, this apostasia in the Church since , oh maybe 1960.
For this “time of all times and end of all ends” as Our Lady (in her visitation at La Salette 1846) described ‘these last times of the world’, our times, the context and understanding of our Lady’s prophecies and requests given at Fatima are for the time when “Communism is the most visible among the organs of subversion against the Church and the Tradition of Divine Revelation” as Cardinal Pacelli, later Pope Pius XII stated.
It is for the time when the “Innovators” of which he warned would have successes in their intent to “destroy the universal flame of the Church” and impose upon the Church the ‘demolition of bastions’. ‘
Nouvelle’ theologians, periti of the Vatican Council II even boasted of this “suicide”.
Cardinal Pacelli equated this “suicide” with what “the alteration of the Faith, in its liturgy, its theology and its soul would represent.” Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli in conversation with his friend Count Enrico Pietro Galeazzi. (This quote appears in Pie XII Devant l’Histoire (Pius XII Before History. 1972. by Msgr. Georges Roche and Phillippe Saint Germain.
The full quote from the work of Roche and Saint Germain is translated from the French and published:
https://onepeterfive.com/pius-xiis-prophetic-warnings-fatima-suicide-altering-faith-liturgy/
And Pope Pius XII conveniently died just before 1960 – which was the date which the entire Catholic world knew our Lady’s Third Secret would be published.
For those who are going to argue: “It was ever thus” – THINK. There is a big difference between an apostasy and the apostasy which captures virtually the entire hierarchy and reveals the man of sin. 2 Thess. 2:3.
Is there any way they are going to publish that in 1960 or 2000 or 2022?
This interview is critically important for the Church and the world
https://www.fatimashrineboston.org/blog/fr-fuentes-interview-with-sr-lucia/
The stories used to prop up Fatima and the alleged secrets seem endless.
There is nothing I have written here that can not be confirmed as a fact of matter from many sources. There exists mountains of published material on Fatima before the Vatican Council II most of it with the imprimatur. The facts of Sr. Lucia’s life prior to the Council are well known from many sources, including her own memoirs.
About those endless alleged secrets. In his work: “The Keys of this Blood” – Fatima Obfuscator, Fr Malachi Martin gave the Game away.
Martin was a Jewish operative for B’nai B’rith under his Handler: Cardinal Bea [Jew]. .
But for some reason, Martin gave the Game away. In KOTB, Martin takes as his subject matter: the capture of the hierarchy of the Church by hostile powers. [ Kind of like the Synagogue of Satan maybe].. In Martin’s novel these are vague World Power state agencies [no separation between synagoue and state]. And wouldn’t you know it, in KOTB, they operate through their agents within the Conclave.
In KOTB, there is a Conclave where these agencies stand aside a cardinal which word- weasel Malachi calls: ‘the elect’. In other words, a Cardinal was elected to the papacy. In Martin’s story,’the elect’ was then stood aside within the Conclave with threats of ‘a little brutality’ by hostile powers.
Naturally, Martin’s KOTB scenario does not go into the relevant knowledge. Whoever had been elected , if ‘the elect’ had accepted office, then he would indeed have been the pope. He wasn’t ‘the elect’, he was the pope. De facto he could have been ‘stood aside’ with what Martin calls threats of ‘a little brutality’. But de jure he could not have abdicated under threat. Therefore he was the pope – not ‘the elect’. Not even Martin can obfuscate this. Therefore de jure, whoever was then elected to take the place of the pope on a succeeding ballot would have been an anti-pope. The true pope would have remained a prisoner of the New Regime.
In ‘Keys of This Blood’, the game-plan of the Synagogue is laid out and spun into a scenario that Martin called ‘the bargain’.
It will occur to many of your readers that our Lady’s Third Secret and Martin’s ‘the bargain’ in KOTB are one and the same.
I’m not holding my breath that the alleged Third Secret has any legitimate insight.
yes I remember “the bargein”:
High finance takes care of the churches finances, while the church does…? I forgot this part.
Am I correct?
maybe I should read this book again.
In any case: whatever and whoever martin might have been. He has written interesting books
If a thing is both falsifiable and quantifiable there is no need to hold your breath. The Holy Faith does not ask for the deformity of natural reason.
I refer to our Lady’s published prophetic statement regarding the conversion of Russia [ that would be conversion to the faith of the Roman Catholic Church – not the Novus Ordo, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Methodists etc.]
If the Holy Father and all the bishops consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, then she promises to convert Russia and in that conversion a time of peace will come to the world.
If not, then war, famine, the persecution of the Church and the annihilation of certain nations will follow because Russia is the instrument chosen by Heaven to punish the world for its crimes and sins.
This has everything to do with the Eclipse of the Church, the capture of the hierarchy by the Communist subversion of ecclesiastical Masonry, the Great Apostasy, the great loss of souls for which our Lady gave sovereign remedies.
So. Is the prophecy public, clear and falsifiable? Yes. Is it quantifiable? Yes. Russia with the highest abortion statistics in the entire world decade after decade – as the Soviet Union and as the ‘Russian Federation’ – these stats are the clear indicator of any conversion (or not). Will these improve after Acting Pope , No. 2, Francis has had a go at consecrating Russia? [At least he managed to consecrate Russia by name – we’ll give him that].
For our part, those who believe our Lady’s prophecies to be ‘worthy of credence’ will continue to do Five First Saturdays , follow our Lady’s counsels and see.
And those who never gave any credence to them will be giving credence to the world war that is now manifestly shaping up between ZOG West and ZOG East – led by Russia.
Before that happens, however, I think the Fatima will hit the fan in Rome. What Malachi Martin was delegated to specifically obfuscate above all else, namely – the existence of a real pope, while the anti-papal pretenders occupied the Chair – I think this is another Fatima story whose time now has come.
More 1879 Secret of LaSalette/1917 Fatima apparition lies
“This has everything to do with the Eclipse of the Church, the capture of the hierarchy by the Communist subversion of ecclesiastical Masonry, the Great Apostasy, the great loss of souls for which our Lady gave sovereign remedies.”
Contradiction #1. Matt 5:14-16 “You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid” unless the Lady of LaSalette says the Church will be in eclipse and hidden from the world for 64+ years with no end currently (or ever?) in sight.
Contradiction #2. Vatican 1 Session 4 Pastor Aeternus – For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day AND FOREVER HE LIVES and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy roman see, unless, the Lady of LaSalette overrides the defined dogma of the Roman Papacy by saying Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of the Antichrist.
In other words, the Lady of LaSalette and Fatima’s prophetic message is reduced to the following: If God gets angry enough, he just might actively punish you (the faithful) for doing what he commanded you to do in the first place: remain in communion with the Holy See (because the faithful were promised the Roman See cannot fail, defect, or deceive them.)
Interesting points to consider, George. Catholics have become fixated on private revelations, much in the same way Protestants are. Why is that, though? Is the old faith too boring for them?
You are a complete hoot Georgej15. Pastor Aeternus does not define new doctrine. Even so, I think you should at least conjecture that Pope Leo XIII was familiar with this teaching. And he granted a canonical coronation to Our Lady of La Salette at the Basilica of Our Lady of La Salette 21 August 1879. After this coronation, the prophecies of our Lady of La Salette were published under imprimatur as ‘worthy of credence.’
You don’t find them worthy of credence. Well. This is your problem. Why don’t you write in about something really interesting like : why is pope no. 1 and pope no. 1 in conflict over doctrines defined as de fide – such as quo primum.
Linde, if you don’t click reply, the user will not be notified of your response. You have to click on the reply button below their comment.
Timothy who is the last pope you accept as valid?
Samuel, I can’t really comment on that at the moment.
The three kids in the Fatima visions were two siblings, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, and their first cousin, Lucia dos Santos. The Mayor of Oulem who denounced their visions and arrested them was Artur dos Santos. I’ve not been able to find any genealogical info on him, which itself is suspicious. I would bet that Lucia dos Santos and Artur Santos were related, and that his alleged persecution of them was a fraud to make them look credible. He was a Freemason so another purpose of the faked persecution could be controlled opposition AntiMasonry.
I do believe that the vision was demonic. I believe that demons worked through the three kids, their parents and the official involved, Santos, to arrange this deception.
Francisco and Jacinta Marto were siblings and Lucia Santos was their first cousin. The official, the Municipal Administrator of Oulem, who arrested them was Artur Santos. I would bet that he was related to them based on the shared surname. I believe that the Fatima visions were a demonic deception, and one that involved the use of human agents all significantly related to each other. Santos was a Freemason, that combined with the anti-Masonic statements of the Fatima goddess could mean that the vision involves a dialectic of false conflict between the Roman Church and Masonry that we could perhaps call ‘controlled opposition AntiMasonry’.
Hi. Very interesting. It is I who put together that book. If there is just one thing to consider that would prove the apparitions to be of evil origin it is the blatant disobedience of Lucia during the June 1917 apparitions in which Lucia’s mother said she was not allowed to go and yet she went anyway. Somebody might argue God’s will is stronger, but it is God’s commandment that was broken. Clearly, even from this one aspect, this was not from God.
Bernal Diaz, do you have a website I can go to? I searched high and low on the website using your name to no avail. I used the internet WayBackMachine to access archived material for ourladysresistance.org. which was very helpful and would like to read more of your material if possible.
Unfortunately, no I don’t have that or any other Catholic website right now. Also the rage of hell was let loose on our family by my mother in law who, along with her husband, started a church named after Fatima! So she is even now on a campaign of wickedness – making false accusations and disturbances frequently. When this first took place I had a good time to reflect on what had always bothered me about sites like mine that are subject to no true Catholic hierarchy. So I pulled the plug for fear of ever spreading any errors. The secondary advantage is related to the false accusations but I won’t get into it now.
With that said, we did recently start a new website for parents who have children denied medical care. I can send you some information if you like. Just reply with your e-mail address. Or if you want to “discuss” Catholicity from time to time we could just e-mail. Anybody else I will do the same thing for the next 24 hours (respond with your e-mail).
God bless.
Hi Bernall,
I would like to discuss Roman Catholicism with you as well as the allopathic medical system.
My e-mail address is dpgray@telus.net
God Bless
Bernal, what “errors” might you have spread? There are some who condemn as anti-Catholic those who don’t accept Fatima as legitimate. Obviously, this is preposterous. Is this due to a pharisaical type of Feenyeism or hyper-papalism? Is it a sign of spiritual weakness that if even one related aspect of their faith is challenged, they lash out inappropriately?
Everything is a lie since the Authority of the Church is stolen by Jews. Pius XII and Paul VI come from the Rothschild banking clan.
Top Ten Reasons why the first antipope was Benedict XV in 1914
80 top positions in the government of the Vatican were fired and replaced the very first day of the new Pope Benedict XV in 1914. This supports the Freemason conspiracy of a preexisting plan.
Communism starts three years after the antipopes are in power and is never fought by the Catholic Church. The Jew and Freemason takeover of Russia, which the Catholic Church would know better than anyone, is never made known and never was any attempt made to combat it.
Daniel 8:8-9
And the he goat became exceeding great: and when he was grown, the great horn was broken, and there came up four horns under it towards the four winds of heaven. 9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn: and it became great against the south, and against the east, and against the strength.
This Prophesy of Daniel speaks directly of the coming of the Antichrist, the little horn, and says that Antichrist comes out of the four before him. There were four Popes in the Freemason conspiracy working to bring Paul VI to the Papacy; Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII, John XXIII and they all come from the Vatican power line of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla, the he goat.
The Vatican II false Council documents are voted on by over two thousand Catholic bishops. The documents are so blatantly false, scandalous, heretical, and outright ridiculous that it would take the entire fifty years of stacking the bishopric with Freemasons to achieve the 99.4% yes voting (approximately 2000 votes yes and 11 votes no for sixteen separate documents). Managing to achieve a Bishopric containing 2000 heretics could not possibly have been done by John XXIII alone.
Pius XI forced the victorious Mexican Catholic army to lay down their weapons and to surrender to the Anti-Catholic Freemason government.
Benedict XV disbanded the organization called “Sodalitium Pianum” formed to root out and combat heresy for the Vatican.
Pius XI condemns the “Action Francaise” which was a group in France combating the heresies against Catholic Dogma.
Pius XII between 1937 and 1949 there is not a single instance of the words “communism” or “socialism” in the Acta Apostolica (the official catalog of Pontifical speeches and acts) by his actions he supports Communism. The Catholic world is never told that Communism is Jewish Freemason and the Catholic world stands by idly while one hundred million people are murdered.
John XXIII lies about the reason for calling Vatican II saying he was inspired by the Holy Ghost when the truth is that the council was already planned long before he became Pope with many of the documents already prepared.
Pius XI signs a Concordat and the Lateran Treaty with Freemason Mussolini and takes money for the stolen Papal States which the Church owned for 1500 years.
The devil will establish the one world religion where he is worshiped. Pius XI in Pacem, Dei Munus Pulcherrimum, “putting aside mutual suspicion, should unite in one league, or rather a sort of family of peoples” promotes the one world religion where Lucifer will reign instead of Christ.
The devil will establish the one world religion government where he is the supreme power. Pius XI in Quinquagesimo Ante “that a new era and a new order were about to rise” promotes the new world order where Lucifer reigns instead of Christ.
Pius XII brought Fr. Annibale Bugnini to the Vatican in 1948 to work on replacing the Tridentine Latin Mass and replace it with the novus ordo non-Christian ritual.
The very first public statement of Pope Pius X in his encyclical “E Supreme” says that he believed Antichrist was already alive. “When all this is considered there is good reason to fear lest this great perversity may be as it were a foretaste, and perhaps the beginning of those evils which are reserved for the last days; and that there may be already in the world the “Son of Perdition” of whom the Apostle speaks (II. Thess. ii., 3). Such, in truth, is the audacity and the wrath employed everywhere in persecuting religion, in combating the dogmas of the faith, in brazen effort to uproot and destroy all relations between man and the Divinity! While, on the other hand, and this according to the same apostle is the distinguishing mark of Antichrist, man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. “He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God” (II. Thess. ii., 2). The future Pope Paul VI was six years old and when older would sit in the temple of God, the chair of Peter, and show himself as if he were God by instituting a new religion with new sacraments as an evil copy of our Holy Lord Jesus. Every Pope since 1914 has a direct line of relationship to Cardinal Rampolla, a suspected Freemason and Satanist, so that all the conclaves are rigged and set up and the will of God is ignored. The four Popes had one plan, one vision, one goal and that was to elect Paul VI to the papacy. Paul VI was the planned destroyer of the Church, the Antichrist, since the plan was conceived.
Your thesis that Paul VI was the anti-Christ contradicts the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine (doctor of the church) in his five volume work ‘On the Roman Pontiff’. He taught that the anti-Christ will be a Jew and will reign only for 3 1/2 years.
Your quote from Pius X’s E Supremi (1903, first year of his ‘pontificate’) presumes that Pius X was a Catholic Pope. It is my opinion that the key word ‘may’ in the quote shows that Pius X was a modernist. In saying that the ‘son of perdition’ may already be in the world he is making a false prophecy. A true Catholic Pope doesn’t speculate or speak ambiguously. The ‘son of perdition’ is either here or he is not, there is no ‘maybe’ to it. Since the ‘son of perdition’ has yet to be revealed as per St. Robert Bellarmine, Pius X was 120 years off on his prophecy.
It is my opinion that the Leo XIII through Francis were/are modernists and also unaware of their modernist beliefs. I was a member of the Novus Ordo Church of Modernism for 59 years before waking up to the modernist errors so I know what it means first hand to be an ignorant follower of modernist beliefs and practices.
Modernism had already embedded itself in the teaching magisterium and laity (darnel amongst the wheat) long before the reign of Pope Pius IX the last true Pope. This is exemplified by the magisterial documents of Pope Gregory XVI Mirari Vos 1832 ‘On Liberalism and Religious Indifferentism’ and Sumo Lugiter Studio 1832 ‘On Mixed Marriages’.
If we don’t discern correctly who the last Catholic Pope was we will continue to be useful idiots for the modernists who took over and morphed the visible Roman Catholic Church into the Novus Ordo Church of Modernism. There is no such thing as ‘traditional’ Catholicism only Roman Catholicism.
Unless we have the whole truth and nothing but the truth we do not have the truth. I do not claim to be a Roman Catholic, I claim to be an aspiring Roman Catholic. I am not so arrogant as to presume that after having spent 59 years (born and raised) in the Novus Ordo Church of Modernism it is possible for me to have figured out all the modernist errors, false teachings, devotions, practices, private revelations, etc.
My guide for Roman Catholic teaching is the Catechism of the Council of Trent promulgated by Pope St. Pius V in 1545-56, the decrees of the First Vatican Council called by Pope Pius IX and the writings of St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Thomas Aquinas (all three doctors of the church).
Insofar as quoting sacred scripture regarding the end times it is advisable to be very careful regarding private interpretation. The interpretation of sacred scripture is reserved for the authentic teaching magisterium hence I defer to St. Robert Bellarmine regarding the ‘son of perdition’. We can as laity try to read the signs of the times however and I would suggest considering the meaning of Chapter 20 in the book of the Apocalypse which begins with the quote ‘Satan is bound for 1000 years’ in my Douay-Rheims version. I presume the term ‘bound’ means that Satan’s power is limited just as God limited the power of Satan to test Job in the old testament. Satan was not permitted to take the life of Job. It is my personal opinion that this binding of Satan correlates with the temporal power of the papal states which lasted roughly from 756 to 1870 which is 1114 years. I make the case that Satan was ‘unbound’ by the modernist Leo XIII who usurped the chair of St. Peter. So long as the papal states existed the heresies of separation of church and state and so called freedom of religion were kept ‘bound’, hence modernism was kept in check. Leo XIII made an ambiguous statement ‘the common Father of all’ in reference to God the Father in Auspicato Concessum (1882) which opened the door to the erroneous Freemasonic principle of fraternity, the so called brotherhood of man. The term ‘Father’ in reference to God is specific to a relationship between baptized souls and God the Father. God is also creator of all. The two terms Father and Creator are not the same. A true Catholic Pope doesn’t make mistakes like this in a teaching document (ex-cathedra). Leo XIII also taught the heresies of separation of church and state and freedom of religion as per the expose by Bernal Diaz in ‘The Lady of Fatima and the Anti-Christ’.
Leo XIII had a diabolical vision in October 1884 regarding the usurpation of the papacy and he composed the long form prayer to St. Michael the Archangel as a consequence. This diabolical vision was mirrored 33 years later by the diabolical ‘miracle of the sun’ in Fatima October 1917. If one examines all the events following the election of Leo XIII and his modernist successors such as the sale of the papal states (Lateran Treaty), Bolshevik Revolution, WWI, Spanish Flu scamdemic (caused by diabolical vaccination programs which persist to this day), WWII, communism, Stalin’s 30 year reign of terror, Pol Pot’s reign of terror, Mao Zedong’s reign of terror, legalization of contraception, abortion, sodomy, euthanasia, pornography, IVF, human embryonic research, organ transplants, etc. the list is a mile long. Include in this the fact that every day on planet earth roughly one million human beings are killed by abortion and the abortifacient effects of contraception I would say that yes Satan has been ‘unchained’ compared to the rest of history with the possible exception of the way the world was prior to Noah’s flood of which we have no record.
In last Sunday’s liturgy I was reminded that of the 600,000 men that passed through the Red Sea only 2 entered the promised land. This should inspire every aspiring Roman Catholic all the more to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. We suffer greatly from culpable ignorance, weakness and indifference. The sole remedy was given to us by Jesus Christ and exemplified by the prayer of St. Thomas Aquinas:
‘The cross is my certain salvation, the cross is that which I ever adore, the cross of the Lord is with me, the cross is my refuge.’
Thank you William Brock for sharing your thesis and other comments I will be doing further research on them.
May God bless you with a holy Lenten season.
Daniel Gray
One problem with Bellarmine’s idea is that the 3.5 year trib (presumably followed by another 3.5 years, totalling 7 years) is a millennialist/millennarian concept not taught by the Church Fathers. This idea often involves invalidating the 70 weeks prophecy of Daniel (by making it a future prophecy, which it absolutely is not). I’d have to see this teaching of his, though. I have not seen it, so I am only going by what you have posted here.
Bellarmine, of course, is not infallible.
I know that St. Robert Bellarmine is not infallible, only a true Catholic Pope has that charism when teaching ex-cathedra.
The objective reality is that St. Robert Bellarmine is a whole lot more reliable than a lay person like myself reading the book of Daniel or Apocalypse and deciding for myself how to recognize the ‘son of perdition’. St. Robert Bellarmine is referred to as a doctor of the church for a good reason, his theology is sound.
Can you provide references to the ‘Church Fathers’ you are referring to specifically by name and what they taught regarding the ‘son of perdition’. If St. Robert Bellarmine’s theology was in fact contradicting these ‘Church Fathers’ than why was he not corrected by any of the true Catholic Popes?
Thanks in advance for whatever information you can provide.
Daniel, the 70 weeks prophecy being fulfilled is not my lay opinion. Neither is what I said about millennialism. The overwhelming majority of the Church fathers taught either amillennialism or post millennialism. I would like to see an exact quote from Bellarmine about this 3.5 years in order to properly assess it.
As for why Bellarmine was not corrected, I wasn’t aware that the Popes were responsible for correcting doctors of the church on all teachings. Catholic eschatology is not very developed, likely because it is a non-salvific aspect of the faith. As a result, there is much that is left to interpretation and speculation.
Apparently Bellarmine and Jesuit Francisco Ribera were the primary proponents of the single anti-Christ yet to come theory. It seems this teaching tended towards the millennialism that the Church previously opposed.
Eschatology can get extremely complex, especially when you start to allow things like dual fulfillment, or multi-fulfillment of single prophecies. For example, Nero was considered the anti-Christ by the Church Fathers. But does that mean there won’t be more or one other?
If the theology of St. Robert Bellarmine was seriously flawed it stands to reason that he would never have been declared to be a saint which is an infallible act of a true Catholic Pope and furthermore he would not have been declared a doctor of the church. The ‘correction’ by a Pope to which I refer is the simple fact that he would never have been declared to be saint or doctor of the church or is my thinking in error?
St. Robert Bellarmine in Book III ‘On The Roman Pontiff’ regarding the See of the Anti-Christ said this:
‘Just the same, the true opinion is that the seat of Antichrist will be Jerusalem, not Rome, and the temple of Solomon as well as the throne of David, not the temple of St. Peter or the Apostolic See. We can prove the fact by a two-fold argument: First, by refutation, then from the Scripture and the Fathers.’
It seems to me the St. Robert Bellarmine well understood the teachings of the early Church Fathers and would not be contradicting them as you claim.
There is also the matter of Enoch and Elijah that must be dealt with, the two prophets who will fight the ‘son of perdition’. This is what St. Robert Bellarmine had to say in that regard quote:
‘Now I come to the Scriptures whereby it is proved that the seat of the Antichrist is going to be in Jerusalem, not Rome. The first is in chapter XI of the Apocalypse, where John says that Enoch and Elijah are going to fight with Antichrist in Jerusalem, and must be killed by the same Antichrist: “And they will throw their bodies in the streets of the great city, which is spiritually called Sodom, and Egypt, where even their Lord was crucified.’ Arethas in this citation says: “Their bodies he will cast out unburied in the streets of Jerusalem, for in it he will reign as King of the Jews” Likewise, all other interpreters show, and this can rightly be said to be Jerusalem, and it cannot be denied. For what City is it in which the Lord was crucified but Jerusalem?’
Are theology and eschatology the same thing? If some theology is considered non-dogmatic, then isn’t it possible to err in non-dogmatic theology?
I understand your logic, but I am just unclear about where the line is drawn between fallibility and infallibility when it comes to Saints, theologians, and non-dogmatic teaching.
I don’t believe there is any eschatology that is dogmatic in Catholic teaching other than a final judgment and second coming of Christ. I could be wrong. But if that is true, then Bellarmine’s opinions about a future anti-Christ are merely speculaton, as far as I can see it. It’s not that I don’t believe Bellarmine about a future jewish anti-Christ, I am just trying to be objective and not let any kind of hyper-papalism cloud the issue.
You asked, are theology and eschatology the same thing?
The Miriam Webster dictionary defines eschatology as:
‘A branch of theology concerned with the final events in the history of the world or of humankind’
This means that by definition eschatology is theology.
To the best of my knowledge there are no Roman Catholic dogmatic teachings regarding the ‘son of perdition’, Enoch and Elijah. If there are I hope someone will enlighten me.
This doesn’t automatically mean that the topic of the ‘son of perdition’, Enoch and Elijah and end times eschatology is wide open to speculation by anyone and everyone. Roman Catholics are bound to follow the teaching magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church with regards to matters of eschatology. St. Robert Bellarmine is part of that teaching magisterium. That is why I take the safe route and trust St. Robert Bellarmine (doctor of the church) instead of wandering off into wild speculation based on my own personal opinions or that of anyone else.
What complicates matters even more is when speculation on the ‘son of perdition’ is tied in with anti-Popes. If we don’t have our thinking correct on the ‘son of perdition’ we can mistake anti-Popes for the ‘son of perdition’ which is why I refuted the speculation that Paul VI was the anti-Christ (son of perdition).
When someone claims that a particular modernist anti-Pope is the ‘son of perdition’ they have stepped outside of bounds of Roman Catholic teaching in my opinion. Similarly, when someone claims that a true Pope can teach error ex-cathedra it is a contradiction to the charism of infallibility Jesus Christ has promised in Mathew 16:18-19 and Luke 22:31-32 properly understood and also the decrees of the First Vatican Council in1868.
According to St. Robert Bellarmine there had been roughly 40 Popes declared to be anti-Popes up to his time in history and he disproved all the false claims in his book “On The Roman Pontiff’. We don’t have St. Robert Bellarmine to today to discern true Popes from false Popes for us so how do we do it for ourselves?
I don’t know what you mean by the term ‘hyper-papalism’ so I did a quick web search and it produced many sources for this term such as:
Catholicism versus papalism
Papalism Christian sources
Eastern Orthodox Perspective on Vatican II
etc.
Miriam Webster definition of papalism: the papal system
Miriam Webster definition of hyper: excessive
When I put the two words together is reads excessive papal system or excessive papacy or excessive papal power?.
Excessive papal power?
Excessive in what way?
How can the papacy be excessive? This seems to be a contradiction in terms.
The authority of a Catholic Pope is that which Jesus Christ himself established concerning ex-cathedra teaching, binding and loosing ecclesiastical laws, liturgical practices, canon laws, devotions, beatifications, canonizations, etc. No one can judge the Pope because he is the highest authority in the Church established by Jesus Christ.
So what exactly do you mean by ‘hyper-papalism’?
The quote you requested regarding the 3 1/2 year reign of the anti-Christ can be found on page 365 in Book III ‘A Disputation on Antichrist’ by St. Robert Bellarmine ‘On The Roman Pontiff’:
Quote: ‘The same is proven by the Fathers who teach in a common consensus on Antichrist. Firstly, that he will be the chosen instrument of the Devil to the extent that a plenitude of diabolic malice will inhabit him corporally. Secondly, Antichrist will not reign more than three and a half years, and hence they teach Antichrist is going to be only one man’.
He provides references to Fathers of the Church including St. Irenaeus, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Chrysostom, St. Ambrose, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, St. Hippolytus and others.
The single book which contains all five books ‘On The Roman Pontiff’ can be obtained at this web-link to amazon.com:
https://www.amazon.com/Roman-Pontiff-Five-Books-Controversiis/dp/0692705708/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1OXWMW4M1NYAN&keywords=on+the+roman+pontiff&qid=1677214910&sprefix=on+the+roman+pontif%2Caps%2C169&sr=8-1
The complete Book III ‘A Disputation on Antichrist’ is 147 pages long.
Hope this helps.
It’s not quite as open and shut as you make it out to be. A lot of the attention to the man of perdition during the times of the Fathers rested on Emperor Nero.
For example, St. John Chrysostom of Antioch:
Clement of Alexandria:
While teachers of moral theology may be excellent in their respective speciality, it doesn’t necessarily mean they are excellent in other areas of the faith, like in eschatology. One who is an authority in one area isn’t necessarily an authority in another area. Be careful with this line of thinking.
I think it was Shane Schaetzel who coined hyper-papalism as a better term for neo-ultramontanism.
https://completechristianity.blog/2018/08/27/catholicism-versus-hyper-papalism/
However, I would describe hyper-papalism as giving more power or infallibilty to the Papacy and/or Magisterium than is appropriate.
I am an aspiring Roman Catholic and don’t allow myself to be distracted by ambiguous terms like ultramontanist, neo-ultramonstanist, hyper-papalist, etc. I don’t play word games.
I consider the Roman Catholic catechisms such as the Catechism of the Council of Trent and those promulgated by true Popes to be ex-cathedra, as well as Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, Apostolic Constitutions, Papal letters to Bishops/Bishops councils, decrees of the various Councils throughout history approved by true Popes, papal pastoral letters, Pius IX’s syllabus of errors etc.
Are you equating papal ‘speaking’ as in a papal interview recorded by a journalist or papal public speaking with official papal writings/documents?
Who decides what is/isn’t ex-cathedra if it isn’t what I just described? The true Popes didn’t literally rubber stamp these documents ‘ex-cathedra’.
I’ve researched the ‘ex-cathedra’ question and found that the ‘Catholic’ theologians Cardinal Newman and Cardinal Manning didn’t agree with what was/wasn’t ex-cathedra in the syllabus of errors promulgated by Pope Pius IX.
So an aspiring Roman Catholic layman like myself is supposed to decide which of these ‘Catholic’ theologians has figured out correctly what is/isn’t ex-cathedra regarding the syllabus of errors and other official papal documents? Isn’t that what Protestants, Orthodox, sedevacantists, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, Bible Christians and every other self professed ‘Christian’ has been doing since the time of Christ? We don’t like what a true Pope teaches in his official magisterial documents so we are supposed to decide for ourselves or follow our favourite expert ‘theologian’ who disagrees with the official papal writings?
The quotes you provided by St. John Chrysostom and Clement of Alexandria do not provide the whole picture. Hind site is 20/20. St. Robert Bellarmine could see things they could not because he lived after them. We can see things now that St. Robert Bellarmine could not see in his age. That is why I asked the question how do the laity (that’s me) figure these things out today without a living St. Robert Bellarmine’s spiritual wisdom? The short answer is we have to learn to think like St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori and St. Thomas Aquinas (doctors of the church) by reading/studying their works.
Why is it important to be able to properly define and recognize Antichrist? It is part of reading the signs of the times and protecting ourselves and others from spiritual deceptions in our times.
St. Robert Bellarmine said there are six certain signs of anti-Christ. Two preceding, two accompanying and two after it. It is easy for me to understand the two accompanying and two after. It is the preceding two signs that I find difficult to grasp. He said that one of the preceding signs is that the Gospel had to be preached to the entire world. Has that been accomplished? The second is the desolation of the Roman Empire. Has that been accomplished?
I highly recommend reading the entire Book III ‘A Disputation on Antichrist’ by St. Robert Bellarmine before jumping to conclusions. He comments on the various positions of the early Church Fathers. He points out the role of Simon Magus and Nero in relation to the Antichrist and he defines the term Antichrist as per Roman Catholic teaching showing the errors of protestant heretics regarding this important subject.
Here is another quote by St. Robert Bellarmine regarding Nero and Simon Magus in relation to Antichrist:
‘In like manner, Antichrist began to come soon after Christ was assumed into heaven in his precursors, and the mystery of iniquity began to work, namely in heretics and tyrants persecuting the Church; especially in Simon Magus, who said he was Christ, and in Nero who first began to oppose the Church. Just the same, he will not come in his own person until the end of the world. Therefore, the spiritual persecution of Simon Magus and the temporal persecution of Nero is called the mystery of iniquity because they were signs and figures of the persecution of Antichrist.’
The modernist anti-Popes are part of the mystery of iniquity, none of them are the actual physical person of the anti-Christ. That is the very important point I have been trying to make.
If it’s semantics to use terms to describe complex concepts, perhaps we ought to get rid of all terms and just grunt and nod at each other all day. But glad to hear that you are aspiring to Catholicism.
I don’t know. Fortunately, that is not for me to decide, as a layman and all. I know my role.
No, you’re not supposed to decide. Did I suggest otherwise? Disinctions between fallible and infallbile arguments, if not self evident, are up to the Church itself to determine. Obviously, if everything were as simple as you seem to make it regarding infallibility, the Church wouldn’t be facing the biggest crisis it has ever faced. This isn’t a problem for merely laymen like us. This is a problem across the entire Church.
You’re right, they don’t provide the whole picture. That’s why they are just examples. I am not sure why you are relying on one doctor of the Church to determine Bible prophecy, as if he is more authoritative than others. Perhaps you can explain that. The doctors are an aid, for sure. It is beneficial to study their works, I can’t argue against that. But the Magisterium, Scripture, and Tradition must maintain harmony and balance. One cannot contradict the others. Bellarmine’s insights into prophecy are not necessarily true. He is fallible in this area. Prophecy is not like morality. Some of it seems open-ended, at this point.
Is it important to our salvation? Being able to read the signs of the times comes as a Grace from God. There is a view of prophecy as idealistic, in that we should be ready at all times for any of the warnings given and that prophecy is happening to everyone at all times. That is a fairly safe approach to prophecy that the Roman Catholic Church seems to have taken. Prophecy, outside of Messianic prophecies, the resurrection, and final judgement are not central to our salvation. This is why the Church has not developed its eschatology like other camps have (namely Protestants). Instead, the Churhc focuses on the meat and potatoes of day-to-day living in the faith. I was a Protestant myself, so I know directly how fixated they were on prophecy—a lot more than Catholics (other than maybe hardcore Fatimists).
If you find Bellarmine’s writings edifying, then that is great. But I don’t believe one Saint can have a monopoly on prophetic interpretation, especially when tradition is rich with eschatology. In my lay opinoin, Bellarmine is too associated with Ribera and his school of futurism. However, Bellarmine may be proven correct. We will all find out when we die.
Further reading you may appreciate: https://onepeterfive.com/how-protestants-orthodox-magisterialists-and-traditionalists-differ-on-the-three-pillars-of-christianity/
Enough is enough…
This entire discourse began with me trying to enlighten William Brock regarding the error he was making in believing that modernist anti-Pope Paul VI was the person of the anti-Christ. St. Robert Bellarmine in his time was trying to help the protestant heretics out or their heresies by teaching them the relationship between the Roman Catholic Papacy and the Antichrist. I gave William Brock the best advice I possibly could by referring him to the teachings of St. Robert Bellarmine.
This is what I said:
‘Your thesis that Paul VI was the anti-Christ contradicts the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine (doctor of the church) in his five volume work ‘On the Roman Pontiff’. He taught that the anti-Christ will be a Jew and will reign only for 3 1/2 years.’
St. Robert Bellarmine is a saint and doctor of the Roman Catholic Church so Roman Catholics cannot go wrong following his writings because they have been approved by the teaching magisterium, in fact his teachings are so good and in conformity with the Fathers of the Church they declared him a doctor of the church and canonized him a saint. You contradicted my advice by attacking St. Robert Bellarmine saying his theology contradicts that of the early Church Fathers without giving any proof or references. What exactly would you have William Brock do? Follow his own inclinations and continue to believe Paul VI was the person of the anti-Christ? That is going to help lead him to heaven? It’s really no big deal what he believes about Paul VI? I expected him to look into St. Robert Bellarmine’s teachings by obtaining the work ‘On the Roman Pontiff’ and decide for himself what to believe and act accordingly.
I didn’t say I was an aspiring Catholic, I said I was an aspiring Roman Catholic. The two terms should be synonymous but they are not since the modernists took over the teaching magisterium. When I tell people my religious beliefs I say I am an aspiring Roman Catholic not to be confused with the modernist religion headed by ‘Pope’ Francis. It means something specific to me at least, it is the religion established by Jesus Christ. It is the religion of St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Alphonsus Liguori, St. Thomas Aquinas and all the doctors and saints of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. It seems to me to be a very good place to start to be an aspiring Roman Catholic by studying their writings.
Recommending I go to the onepeterfive website which is a traditionalist website is very bad advice. One does not go to a traditionalist, sedevacantist or Novus Ordo website to learn about Roman Catholicism.
Onepeterfive is a joke, even sedevacantist novusordowatch.org can see that:
https://novusordowatch.org/2019/11/onepeterfive-fear-catholicism-wrong/
Can you see the contradictions?
Onepeterfive doesn’t know what Roman Catholicism really is so how can they decide if Roman Catholicism is wrong? Novusordowatch.org doesn’t know what Roman Catholicism really is so who are they to criticize onepeterfive?
So who am I to judge, having admitted to being an aspiring Roman Catholic?
I am not the teaching magisterium but I do know where to find it even in this time of ‘crisis’ as you put it.
Mathew 15:14 comes to my mind.
God Bless
Daniel, you are bordering on dishonesty and hypocrisy, and for what, to win an argument?
First, you accuse me of attacking St. Bellarmine, which I didn’t. I only pointed out that he is not infallible and that his eschatology is not consistent with all of the Church Fathers (I never even said he was wrong, because nobody at this point in human history knows exactly how things will go down in the end).
Second, you accuse me of playing semantical games but then get semantical when it comes to “Catholic” vs. “Roman Catholic”. You can’t have if both ways, Daniel.
You sure have some strong opinions for an aspiring Roman Catholic. How new are you really? I hate getting into debates with magisterialists, because it always ends up in an uncharitable argument and peacocking, which I can’t stand. I am not here to flex my intellectual muscles. That is for insecure men to do.
Dismissing the article by One Peter Five as a joke without addressing the content is not a valid response. It’s more of a logical fallacy (attacking the messenger rather than addressing the message). I didn’t recommend the article as core teaching, like catechism or the Summa. I recommended it because I see an inclination in you that is not Catholic and if you don’t put that flame out, it will only grow. Responding with an article from a Sedevacantist site is not a valid response either. It’s a red herring. How can you say that One Peter Five doesn’t know what Catholicism is if you don’t even know yourself? Are you even baptized or confirmed yet?
William, this is a very important point. I’ve been trying to tell Fatimists this but have not been able to say it as well as this. They seem to think that Judeo-Masonic subversion happened immediately in 1958, nothing predisposed the papcy prior to, end of story. Therefore, anything approved by the Church prior to 1958 must be true and/or infallible. Fatima cannot err, they seem to think. Of course, they also think Pius XII was the last bastion of true Catholicism. As you point out, the logic doesn’t follow here. It’s difficult to believe.
Hello, and thanks for letting me in to the forum.
I’m not Catholic and agree on the Fatima prophecy is Satanic and quite clearly so, short version: https://youtu.be/25xApFzNch4
but how come you can criticize the Church? Is it the way I express myself that upsets so many Catholics, generally not you, meaning Fitz, or Last Anti Mason from what I’ve noticed but other get very angry when I say anything against the “incorruptible church” as Rome declared herself as.
Maybe a side track, glad to see all Catholics hasn’t bought into this demonic deception.
Fitz, by agreeing with this book are you are implying that all popes after Pius V are anti-popes and if so why did you Quote Leo from 1896, as he came after Pius V?
I don’t have an opinion on anti-popes at the moment. I just agree in general with the author that Fatima is likely a deception.
I want to stay on topic but thus something I think I should say to you, I do not know where else to say it. Now that I thought about it, it would be better I had put this in the comment section about the Jesuit hoax but I have already started writing and I will be brief.
I do not know exactly what goes on behind the scenes at the Vatican. It seems to have been subverted by Jews and Freemasons but the idea that the Catholic Church runs the world is stupid, yet many Protestants believe this. Although it is as ridiculous to blame the average Vatican two sect member for the actions of the church hierarchy as it is to blame the average American for the actions of the US army, the same cannot be said about members of the group of religions known as Protestantism. Although most people who belong to these cults may not be knowingly involved in a conspiracy by following this ideology they are participants in one. Many worship Jews and even the ones who do not delight in the idea that Catholics go to hell. If one looks at Hinduism, there is good Karma and bad karma, in Christianity (Protestants are not Christians) there is heaven and hell and James 224 says that justification is by works and not by faith alone and many other passages express this idea as well. A foundational belief of Protestantism is that people are saved by faith alone, not only is thus anti Christianity it is pure evil. Protestants think that as long as they believe in Jesus they get a free ticket to heaven and most Protestants have no morals because of this as well as worshipping Jews, hating Catholics, lying about Catholics or just repeating the lies Pastor Bob told them. in summary Protestantism is evil, it has no redeeming qualities, offers no moral guidance and the average Protestant is a disgustingly evil person.
Just lurking on this site and thought I’d make a comment about this subject. I’m no expert, but I think it’s okay to question the whole Fatima narrative. As Catholics, we aren’t actually required to believe in it. I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s evil and satanic, but there are problems with Fatima, as has been pointed out. And there are Catholics who take it too far and focus too much time on it. I personally prefer the apparition of La Salette. But it’s not just religious matters that can be focused on too much. This can happen in the political realm too. The Jews are of course a big problem today, but if one focuses their whole life on this problem, they likely won’t be focusing enough on Our Lord Jesus Christ, who should be our main focus.
Though there are Catholics to pay too much attention to Our Lady, she still should be honored. There’s only one human being that has ever existed who is intrinsically a part of our redemption. If Our Lady had not said “yes” to bearing the Son of God, we would not be able to go to Heaven. That’s why we honor her. The Protestants don’t get this. To them, she was just a nice woman who bore Jesus. End of story. They really don’t understand the Christian Faith (Catholicism), or Sacred Scripture.
Fatima was approved by the Bishop of Leiria in 1930, end of story, that cant be discussed anymore, Its real, period
.
Private revelation cannot trump Holy Scripture or tradition. End of story. Fatima doesn’t get to dictate the Book of the Apocalypse.
Are you kidding me? Fatima was NOT a private revelation, it was a PUBLIC revelation, by definition. Also, Pope John Paul II linked fatima with Inscripture. The Bishop and the Vatican approved, its done. Roma Locuta, Causa Finita. We are not protestants, it has been approved so its true. You dont have to believe the same way you can be a protestant.
Accusing me of acting like a Protestant simply because I don’t believe in Fatima is weak and ignorant. Private revelation doesn’t necessarily mean it happened to a single person. Have you ever bothered to look up laws concerning private revelation? Private revelation can be anything outside of God-given truth (veritates e ccelo delapsce). It matters not the number of those involved. The Second Vatican council was also “approved”. Does that mean it’s true? Unfortunately, you and most Fatimists are not respecting Canon Law. You’d rather chase signs and wonders, which Holy Scripture itself warns us against. It’s ironic how Fatimists will boast about being true to tradition whilst using non-traditionalists like John Paul II (also non-Catholic?) to validate Fatima. The validity of John Paul II’s entire papacy is in question, yet somehow we give him a pass because he endorsed Fatima. Inconsistent logic here.
Even so, the firsthand testimony of the public viewing of Fatima is more inline with a UFO experience rather than an apparition of the Virgin Mary. Unfortunately, most Fatimists don’t even read the primary sources. Willfully they remain ignorant about what was actually witnessed. And as the above article has shown, there are many things in the Fatima experience which do contradict Catholic teaching; thereby, invalidating Fatima even as a private revelation. In reality, the evidence seems to show that Fatima is neither dogmatic nor private revelation. It fails the tests by which to authenticate it as Catholic.
Well, you did act like a protestant so… its not weak or ignorant, that is all I can say in this matter.
[quote] “Private revelation can be anything outside of God-given truth (veritates e ccelo delapsce)” [/quote]
That is why you have the Church approval for the ones that are true. What is your point here? There are the ones that are false, the ones that are approved therefore true and some doubtful ones that can take more time for a final decision.
[quote] “The Second Vatican council was also “approved” [/quote]
The Second Vatican council on the words of John XVIII was a pastoral council, it didnt have any dogmatic value whatsoever. That was the beginning of the end, that was the first great attempt for the creation of the new church, acting APART from REAL Church authority, such as “the conference of bishops” that exists in many countries, an organization that is NOT part of the body of the Church but with participation of Catholic Bishops. Everything that they decide there has no dogmatic value because its not part of the scructure of the Church, its a political organization aside from the hierarchy of the Church. The Only thing that some of the Bishops and Cardinals signed in the Vatican II was their own excommunication because of the “Decretum Contra Communismum”. The Pact of Metz is a historical fact, period.
[quote] “You’d rather chase signs and wonders, which Holy Scripture itself warns us against” [/quote]
Im not chasing anything, the Holy Mary came from Heaven to warn us about an essencial issue, the infiltration of the Church and the current situation of the world. Im not out here praying and asking for divine revelation or prophecies, the Mother of God came to us sent from God.
[quote] “It’s ironic how Fatimists will boast about being true to tradition whilst using non-traditionalists like John Paul II (also non-Catholic?) to validate Fatima” [/quote]
I gave ONE example because you spoke about fatima having not to do with scripture whatsoever when we have a pope talking about that. There are many other examples of that, Pope Benedict XVI said: “we would be mistaken to think that the prophetic mission of Fatima is complete.” Pius XII wrote, “I have seen the ‘miracle of the sun,’ this is the pure truth.” Many other Cardinals spoke and confirmed fatima. Padre Pio also confirmed Fatima. But I think none of this matter to you anyhow.
[quote] “Even so, the firsthand testimony of the public viewing of Fatima is more inline with a UFO experience rather than an apparition of the Virgin Mary.” [quote/]
I wasnt comment on that but you know… lol… Just read the Iron Mountain Report to inform yourself.
[quote] “Unfortunately, most Fatimists don’t even read the primary sources. Willfully they remain ignorant about what was actually witnessed. And as the above article has shown, there are many things in the Fatima experience which do contradict Catholic teaching; thereby, invalidating Fatima even as a private revelation”. [/quote]
You really shouldnt start claiming ignorance because you have no reason to. There is nothing contradicting Catholic teaching, THAT is why is has been approved, that is how it works, its not up for you to decide that, you can intellectualy decide anyhthing, but this is a matter of power, only the Church has the authority to make that call and once the decision is made its the end of the discussion, Roma Locuta Causa Finita. They decided that was NOT against any dogma or teaching, the decision was made. Some of the surroundings are not necessarily the event, but the MESSAGE and the event itself was approved.
There’s no such thing as a Pastoral Council James T. “Pastoral council” vs “Dogmatic council” is not a real thing. Pastoralism is how the Church shepherds souls to heaven, thus Pastoralism cannot contain heresy. Dogma is pastoral and pastoralism is dogmatic.
We heard that a million times. THEY said pastoral council, Pope John XXIII said Pastoral Council. That was precisely the beginning of the end, that was the way they created to come up with a new church with new values, using the buildings and the sctructure to simply “say” something that was never declared in an extraordinary way but was meerly spoken.
If a pope/cardinal or priest go to a bar and say something, anything…, that doesnt have any extraordinary value whatsoever, that has the same value of what any of us say. They have been using that since then, that happened to the new mass and everything else. The new mass was NEVER declared, NEVER imposed on the Church as a dogma, Pope Paul VI just released the text and it was followed automatically by the Bishops and layman thru the sin of human respect. People respect the person Giovanni Montini more than the 2000 years Church, the body of Christ. It was only downhill after that, they have been using the same crap since Vatican II, they created a parallel organization/rule to “talk” stuff and people decide to follow them. Same with the “Conference of Bishops” all over the world, they are NOT a hierarchical part of the Church. Its always the same since Vatican II. They created that, not me or you, so saying that there is no such a thing as a pastoral council or a dogmatic council doesnt change anything. They were the ones making stuff up. Imagine you saying that to John XXIII, hey sir, there is no such a thing as…. Do you get the point?
Finally to say that “Dogma is pastoral and pastoralism is dogmatic”, that is 100% wrong. You are kidding me right? Priest can never teach anything wrong? They can and they often do, specially today. If a prelade(any rank) says anything that doesnt come directly from the Church teachings, he can be wrong obviously. Even if he tries to teach a dogma he can say something wrong.
James Pastoral isn’t a get out of jail free card for Heresy. Do you admit V2 is heretical?
James, basically what you are saying is that Holy Scripture and Tradition aren’t enough, and that we needed Fatima. We should just throw out our Bibles and just listen to the Fatima apparition.This is absurd.
Fatima was approved BECAUSE that didnt happen. How was Fatima dictating the book of Apocalypse? .
Fatima was deemed “worthy of belief” by a single bishop in an era when modernism was sweeping the Church.
Fatimists view the Apocalypse through the lens of Fatima rather than the other way around. Why else do they rush to interpret current events firstly through Fatima? Instead, everything should be weigned against Scripture and tradition. Private revelation shouldn’t even be considered at this point. Things are out of whack here with Fatimists.
So “worthy of belief” means that it was approved and its true, same thing. That is all what it takes the approval, one Bishop and one decision. The Church is a monarchy, it doesnt need 50% + 1 for an approval. Back then, the Church was infiltrated with modernist Ideas, but there is nothing showing us that it was in any kind of apostasy whatsoever. During the Arian heresy, the majority of the prelades bevelied in that, including the pope. That didnt excommunicated anybody because they were not formaling teaching or declaring that. Their decisions about other things were still valid. Did you know that if a legally ordained priest before Vatican II sold his sould to the devil and prayed satanic masses on thurdays and Catholic masses on sundays, the Catholic mass would still be valid if the text was correct and the consecration would take place?. Imagine not believing that Jesus is God today. Your ideas are not gonna age well. Trust me.
(quote) Why else do they rush to interpret current events firstly through Fatima? (/quote)
Maybe because scripture doesnt talk about time and Fatima does? Its almost impossible to link the Bible with current events precisely because it doesnt talk about dates and speak in generalities, in a compact way.
(quote) Private revelation shouldn’t even be considered at this point. (/quote)
At this point? Fatima happened in 1917, not yesterday. You can keep saying that Fatima is a private revelation but the thing is, private revelation as you call it, can or not be believed REGARDING the salvation of your soul, meaning you dont necessarily have to believe that in order to save your soul. But the main point is, Fatima is true, it has been approved, period….. I never said anything about Fatima being necessary for the salvation of a particular soul, I was criticizing and talking about you saying that Fatima is a satanic deception when its it absolutely wrong, that is unquestionably wrong, the Church said its true, you cant have any saying in that at all… The Fatima message is not necessary for the salvation of a particular soul but that is really not saying much AT ALL. The Holy Mary was sent from Heaven for a reason, a very important reason, to warn people about traitors in the Church, the apostasy, the fake church and how to avoid that. To say in this simple m,anner that “a private revelation doesnt have to be believed”, first of all, it doesnt change the FACT THAT IS TRUE, you are deciding not to believe, but its still true and its the same thing to say that you dont have to believe in someone that knew for a fact that tomorrow a hurricane would pass over your house and kill your entire family. “Well, I dont need to believe that bla bla bla…, ok you are gonna die then… You believing or not is not more important than the fact that is true.
Pope John XXIII receive a direct order from heaven, that was not a matter of interpretation, do you understand that or not? The message was approved and it said, reveal the secrets to the people no later than 1960, by express orders of the Holy Mary. The Pope didnt have any rights to believe in that or not. He disobeyed haven, I wonder why we are in this mess, Fatimat said it…
“Pope John XXIII receive a direct order from heaven, that was not a matter of interpretation, do you understand that or not?”
May we see this direct order?
Certanly.
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/9533/cardinal-bertone-shows-original-letter-containing-third-secret-of-fatima-on-tv
https://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-157/Third%20Secret%20Part%20IV.htm
http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/appendix25.htm
Nothing in those sources which say john23 had a direct order from heaven. I do remember John 23 opening the third secret and saying it had nothing to do with his papacy.
James, your entire argument rests on “it was approved”. But what does that even mean? Was it public revelation (scripture and tradition)? No. Furthermore, the Church does not have providential protection concerning private revelation, which Fatima is. Private revelation is not the same as divine revelation, no matter how emotionally appealing Fatima may be. Respect the differences, stop conflating them, and please actually take the time to read Canon Law.
So what was this so called Church approval you keep going on about? As I told you, it was the single fallible statement made by a bishop during the early phase of the conciliar (Vatican 2) era that it was “worthy of belief”.
A little bit about private revelation:
“Judgment on private revelations falls under a bishop’s ordinary magisterium, which is authoritative but noninfallible and requires religious submission of intellect and will. A bishop or his successor could overturn a prior judgment, such as happened in the case of the apparitions of The Lady of All Nations.”
I believe that if we had an authentically Catholic Church today, the Fatima judgement would be overturned. Why would we expect a counterfeit Church to overturn a seemingly counterfeit private revelation? On the contrary. A counterfeit church has the motive to perpetuate more counterfeits. Now that I think about it, this is the biggest issue with Fatima. It doesn’t seem that errors can be corrected in this conciliar age. In that case, judgement should be reserved until the true Church is restored and can render a legitimate judgement about private revelations. There should be a moratorium on any private revelations that were “approved” and perpetuated around the conciliar era (no, Pius XII’s reign was not modernist-free even though it was [just] prior to V2).
You seem to think if you keep repeating “it was Church approved” that it will make Fatima more valid. When that doesn’t work, you resort to the amateur argument of calling me a Protestant.
Your flawed logic seems to be that you will endorse a seemingly heretical Pope like John Paul II when it suits you (to validate Fatima) but then denounce his conciliar church at other times when it suits you. You can’t have it both ways. Pope Benedict XVI (another conciliar pope) and Pius XII spoke privately when they endorsed Fatima. Show me a Papal Bull on the matter.
If you can’t bother to respect Canon Law or even read the article on which you are commenting, don’t bother commenting at all. You’re wasting everyone’s time.
I’m amazed at the ignorant posts some of your readers write thinking that they are challenging you over what they have done no research about. All they can post is their privately held erroneous opinions and seem to refuse to even read the book you took the time to review. They shouldn’t be taking everyone’s time unless they actually have read the book at least. Thanks for you patient and charitable responses to your readers, Timothy. Hats off to Bernal Diaz for his brave and keen perspective on what seems to be a nearly untouchable but very needed exposé of a pernicious ‘worm’ that has eroded the holy, Catholic faith for at least the last 150+ years.
The Jewish Question in Europe 1890 Civilta Cattolica (Catholic Civilization)[Cover Pope ClementVIII] Audio 1.5Hrs
https://odysee.com/@louismarschalko:2/The-Jewish-Question-in-Europe-1890-Civilta-Cattolica-(The-Catholic-Civilization):9
Thanks for posting this article. Increasingly, Fatima has become a huge distraction, and for some, a pseudo-religion. If it was genuine, the time is long past for heeding the warnings, etc. The “third secret” stuff is just unknowable for most of us, and that sends up red flags. God is not going to make His path so hidden/byzantine.
Canon Law is the same way. Most of us are not Canon Law experts, and so rely on reading the opinions of people who tell us they are. I have no issue with lay people studying and learning Canon Law, but, how do we know? God is not going to tell us to be as children, then make our salvation dependent on learning Canon Law, or belief in a private revelation with murky aspects (the later Lucy is clearly not the original Lucia, and the primacy of the BVM to achieve salvation issue). We are scattered sheep, without an earthly shepherd, and all of this Protestant deciding for ourselves what is the path to heaven is symptomatic of that. When people start on the consecration of Russia, or Canon Law, I start tuning out. Scripture, the teaching of the popes/pre-V2 Magisterium, is the closest a lay person with a job, family, etc. is going to get to the Church.
I am a ’58 sede. I have been in “management” positions where there was a subverting “shadow management” of underlings running their own agenda, and the “bad popes” of the 20th century pre-V2 were certainly afflicted with satanic infiltration, “inner circle” types lying to them, spying on them, setting them up, ignoring them. None of the “bad/weak popes” trashed the perennial teachings of the Church until Roncalli. R&R is simply a sect herding Trads into the satanic falsechurch using the sacraments as lures, where “Resistance” amounts to complaining about the heresies of the False prophet while remaining “una cum”, coming up with theories and laws that deny papal authority, and watching him laugh at us and destroy the papacy by minimizing the papacy with rigged “synods”, etc., and claiming the Church is synodal and not monarchical.
I am Portuguese, and the entirety of this article seems preposterous. It doesn’t surprise me that a book has been written to undermine this Marian apparition, as the infiltrators of the Catholic Church know that the genuine third secret of Fatima, once revealed, will lead to their downfall and the total collapse of the New World Order.
In the late 50s to early 60s, the Vatican replaced the hierarchy of the Catholic Church in Portugal and even substituted Sister Lucia of Fatima with an imposter. The real Sr. Lucia had always asserted that if the Vatican refused to release the third secret in 1960 as Our Lady has asked, she would disclose it herself. The actions of the Vatican towards the Catholic Church in Portugal, including taking control of the shrine of Fatima, provide ample evidence that they want the world to forget this apparition.
Alternatively, they might aim to make people believe the prophecies were fulfilled with the shooting of JPII in 1981. Pope Benedict, a few years before his death, stated that those who think the prophecies of Fatima have come to pass deceive themselves. It seems Satan would prefer people to follow Our Lady of Medjugorje, claiming to be a continuation of Fatima since 1981. The Shrine of Fatima has been neglected, with Freemasons even constructing a parody basilica dedicated to the Holy Spirit in the site, featuring a disturbing crucifix. It is likely that the third secret of Fatima has something to do with Vatican II and some supernatural chastisements where demons manifest themselves, taking souls to hell. There also could be the fake alien invasion as part of a great deception for mankind in these end times.
So again, Fatima has nothing to do with the Church or the world submitting to the authority of Moscow or Russia. Its essence is against global communism, with Russia being seen as a real menace. The fact that the Vatican took part of the Berlin wall and placed it in the site of Our Lady of Fatima is just part of the facade that communism fell and that the consecration of Russia was done and now we have to move on with our lives and change the Church to be more inclusive.
This site is helpful with exposing Communism, but should not be accepted as dogma. Yes, communism is alive and well, and Russia has not converted to the Catholic Faith. If people think Russia is a nice Orthodox Christian nation, they clearly don’t understand how the KGB controls the Orthodox churches. Now, the world has to pray for the Vatican to return to the Catholic Faith, because it has apostatized from the faith that she is suppose to safeguard. However, this is not surprising because according to Jesus’ message to Sr. Lucia of Fatima, Russia would be consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but it would be late. Similar to the King of France who was beheaded 100 years after Christ had requested that France be consecrated to His Sacred Heart, and the request was ignored, leading to the French Revolution known as the reign of terror.
Despite claims that Russia has been consecrated to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, it hasn’t been done in the manner requested by Our Lady. The consecration is supposed to be performed by the Pope and all the bishops of the world, mentioning ONLY Russia. It’s a short five-minute consecration, but for some reason, due to Masonic infiltration the Popes since the 1960’s lost control of their bishops, so it has not been possible. Vatican II is a masonic liturgy and there is valid reasons to be concerned that this new form of worship is even valid.
Now as to why Our Lady appeared in the village of Fatima might be connected to converting Muslims in these end times. Part of the plan of the freemasons is believed to involve getting Muslims and Christians to destroy one another, as evident in the current conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the mass migration of Muslims into European countries. The village of Fatima was named after a Moorish princess. Portuguese Christians fought the Moors, and the son of the King fell in love with the daughter of one of the Moorish kings. She converted to Catholicism to marry the prince, leading to the renaming of the village after her as a sign of gratitude by the King for her conversation. Yes, Fatima is indeed the name of the daughter of Muhammad, who, interestingly, had some respect for Jesus and His mother Mary…unlike the Jews who despise Christ and His mother.
To reiterate, Fatima has nothing to do with bowing down to Moscow or promoting Islam. Our Lady is the perfect symbol of humility, and it is the wish of Jesus Christ that all of Christendom and the world accept the Virgin Mary as their Mother and respect her maternal privileges by all mankind. I personally believe Francis is not a true Pope, so please refrain from insulting Saints Jacinta and Francisco by referring to them as Bergoglio’s saints. These children did not choose to be in this position; it was God who chose them to witness the frightening vision of hell, the sorrow of Our Lady and Our Lord, and the fate awaiting the Catholic Church in the face of wholesale apostasy.
You’re proposing that a private revelation and its supposed suppressed secret has the power to stop the New World Order but genuine Catholic faith alone doesn’t. Think about what you are saying. You people have lost your minds.