Sedevacantist blogger invokes hyperpapalism in attempt to dogmatize Fatima

By Timothy Fitzpatrick
June 26, 2026 Anno Domini

Disclaimer: this is not a personal attack on individual sedevacantists. I have those whom I would call friends that are sedevacantists; however, I do reject sedevacantism even though I might sympathize with the well-intentioned motives of some of its subscribers.

What is an “approved” private revelation if it is not dogma and not part of the magisterium?

The answer to this question cannot seem to be found among the staunchest advocates of the Fatima apparition, yet they blast this term “approved” as if it signifies a Papal Bull or something even greater. Yet, it doesn’t seem to mean much of anything, other than that the local bishop at Fatima found it “worthy of belief”.

Hyperpapalism to the rescue!

“Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself,” writes sedevacantist blogger Introibo Ad Altare Dei in an article about why all Catholics ought to believe in the Fatima apparition. “To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church–i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members.”

Just as sedevacantists need to invoke the over-developed and ultimately erroneous concept of hyperpapalism (generally speaking, the idea that anything a legitimate pope says or does can never be wrong) to make the sedevacantist position true, Introibo has found a clever way of elevating Fatima to some level that the Catholic Church does not allow. Divine revelation has the protection of infallibility, but private revelations do not, no matter how spectacular they may be. However, because of the sedevacantist’s disordered understanding of papal infallibility (defined at the First Vatican Council), they don’t seem to differentiate and, instead, just imply that everything coming from the Holy See is infallible, including declarations on private revelations.

Most defenders of the Fatima apparition when faced with skepticism from fellow Catholics will admit that belief in it is not necessary in order to be a Catholic in good standing, but some will resort to some form of shaming (i.e., “he must be a weak Catholic if he can’t see that Fatima is true” or “he is missing out on blessings”). I’ve personally experienced this shaming as a skeptic and rejector of the official Fatima position (I do believe something appeared to the seers but reject its claim of a heavenly source). The shaming is uncharitable but very real and sometimes even seems like a form of virtue signalling.

Introibo warns, “when people start to cast doubt (or worse, aspersions) upon approved private revelations, it only serves to sow doubt in the Church during the Great Apostasy, with no pope to answer inquiries and settle disputes.”

This statement demonstrates Introibo’s desire to make private revelations dogmatic (which they are not and never will be) because it fits the hyperpapalist narrative that a valid pope, specifically Pope Pius XII, can never err, no matter what (is Introibo’s concern really for Fatima or is it about uniformity in his ecclesiology?). But more concerning about this line of thinking, if a Catholic’s faith hinges on the veracity of a private revelation, the sincerity of their faith is in question. Introibo does not address this glaring problem. If someone initially converts to the faith based on the impressiveness of a private revelation that they experienced or heard about but then is poorly catechized, or not catechized at all, is the person’s faith grounded or even valid? Private revelations can never be the core of a true believer’s faith; at most, they can only direct one to the Church, where they will then learn the nuts and bolts of the faith and begin a journey to establish a true and solid faith in God. If someone leaves the Catholic Church because another sowed a seed of doubt about a private revelation they cherished, that person obviously was a lukewarm believer, at best. Our Lord Jesus Christ emphatically rebuked the lukewarm and those who build their houses on sand instead of rock. Introibo’s scare tactic here is baseless. He is defending those with houses built on sand. The faithless who dabble with Catholicism will eventually and naturally select themselves out of the Church.

Introibo goes on to argue his case for Fatima by appealing to the “it’s approved” narrative and that Pius XII could not have erred in any way, yet it’s all irrelevant seeing that private revelations do not have the protection of infallibility. One hundred quotes from popes and theologians will not change this fact. Furthermore, just because it is approved now does not mean it always will be. The Church has changed its position on private revelations before and during the “valid popes era”, so sedevacantists cannot make excuses. With so much error in the Church today and even in the lead up to the Second Vatican Council, can we really expect the Church to effectively appraise the legitimacy of Fatima as a supposed apparition from God? Perhaps in time, yes, as was the case with the Vatican’s recent ruling against the heretical “co-Redemptrix” push by the SSPX and Trad Incorporated. Trad Inc. concluded that the ruling was yet more evidence of the Church’s apostasy, yet the opposite was the case. The rejection of “co-Redemptrix” was the Church’s indefectibility shining through the darkness that has been increasing around the Church. Though the Church is currently ruled by corrupt men, Christ’s promise prevailed despite this and the Church extinguished a threat to the immutable deposit of faith, specifically to Christ’s exclusive role as redeemer, the Holy Trinity in general, and God’s sovereignty. How ironic that Trad Inc. perceives this as the work of the devil but can’t entertain the possibility that Fatima might be the work of the devil.

It’s interesting that even the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church admits that private revelations do not belong to the deposit of faith and that in evaluating the veracity of private revelations, the Church “cannot accept those which claim to surpass or correct that definitive Revelation which is Christ.” This is exactly what is happening with the Fatima movement today. Instead of seeking the Book of the Apocalypse on future matters, Fatimists are consulting the words spoken by the apparition at Fatima. This suggests the prophetic works spoken by the apparition somehow surpass those of the Book of the Apocalypse. This has led many Catholics to the erroneous idealization of the state of Russia, because according to the Fatima apparition and the writings of Fatima seer Sister Lucia, Russia may lead a revival of Christianity so long as it is consecrated to Mary—something contrary to the Book of the Apocalypse, which allows no conditional prophecy of a future revival but instead warns of unconditional, guaranteed apostasy.

Introibo tries to turn the Catcheism on its head by saying that papal encyclicals are infallible and, therefore, because Fatima has been mentioned positively in encyclicals, that means that Fatima, too, is infallible and the faithful are obligated to accept it as true. Again, sedevacantists fail to recognize the complexity of papal infallibility and reduce it to the carte blanche rule of a Henry VIII-type despot. In reality, papal encyclicals are not infallible of themselves, meaning they have limited infallibility, such as when they are repeating elements of the deposit of faith. Since Fatima is not part of the deposit of faith, Pius XII’s inclusion of Fatima in some of his encyclicals does not fall under the protection of infallibility, even though the rest or parts of those encyclicals might. Furthermore, the statement made by the Bishop at Fatima calling the apparition worthy of belief would also not fall under the protection of infallibility. As well intentioned as his statement might have been, it is not necessarily error free. The Church’s change of stance on other private revelations contradicts Introibo’s insinuation that private revelations are dogmatic or that they ought to be accepted by the faithful.

I’ll save it for another article to debate the technical aspects of Fatima, but Introibo’s use of the “miracle of the sun” as proof of its authenticity is desperate, as the event is one of the more dubious aspects of the Fatima narrative. No world observatories or witnesses outside of the region of Fatima reported any abnormalities with the sun on the day the sun supposedly danced over Fatima. Surely, if it were the sun that danced, there would have been witnesses worldwide and the scientific community would have documented the event with its specialized equipment. So, we can only conclude that it wasn’t the sun but something else…something resembling the sun that the peasant Fatima attendees lacked the vocabulary to describe. For the Catholic authorities not to challenge this fanciful claim is highly suspect (keep in mind that the Vatican 2 orchestrators were already in the Vatican at the time Fatima was being assessed, and the so called traditional, conservative Pius XII had already laid the groundwork for the reforms that were soon to come). Fatimists will often object to logical arguments like mine and dismiss them by saying that God chose for some to see it and others not to. This is how they get around the problem of no witnesses outside of Fatima.

I won’t get into the rest of Introibo’s arguments for the authenticity of Fatima because I want to save it for a general article debunking the main claims of the narrative, but I will talk a bit about one more thing before I end this.

Introibo seems to minimize criticism of the Fatima narrative by reducing it to a mere five objections, even though there are many more theological and logical problems with it. The objections he brings up are: that the apparition was dressed immodestly (which is substantiated by primary source documents; although accounts vary); that Fatima was predicted by occultists; that Lucia made predictions that didn’t come true; and that the Fatima seers were given communion from a chalice (the real objection not addressed by Introibo is that a supposed angel dispensed the Communion). The claim that the apparition was dressed in a higher-than-normal dress/skirt for the fashion of that time is substantiated from the source documents of Fatima. I have read it myself (translated from the Portuguese). I will include this in my future article debunking Fatima. Introibo downplays the fact of occult groups predicting supernatural phenomena on the days that they happened by saying that it’s just demons attempting to co-opt the supposed Holy message of Fatima. Yet, it’s equally possible that the Vatican could have co-opted a demonic manifestation for its own agenda. It wouldn’t be the first time the Church has declared something a miracle but later debunked.

I hope that I have demonstrated here that lurking behind at least some of the Fatima allegiance is not necessarily faith in God but an adherence to a distorted understanding of the Church and papal infallibility—the same misunderstanding at the foundation of the sedevacantist schism. If Catholics would only adhere to the immutable deposit of faith, which is permanently sealed, we wouldn’t have this schism and we would rightfully discern the fraud that is Fatima.

Please see my index of Fatima skepticism for more.