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.
Introibo posted this article because a lot of people were stirred up by another sedevacantist named Steve Speray who had written an article against Fatima the month prior. This author also wrote an article doubting in the story from the Niccan Mopua of Our Lady of Guadalupe last year.
On another note, I take it that the reason you are not sedevacantist is because like many other traditionalists you believe it’s normal for a pope to be useless. I wouldn’t call myself a hyperpaplist but rather an ultramontanist which is how Pope Pius IX put it.
I don’t believe it’s normal for a pope to be useless, but we are not in normal times and some popes piror to 1958 have been “useless” as well (the Church has always struggled with “useless” popes, though not with the intensity and frequency of recent times). Ultramontanism and hyperpapalism are more or less the same thing.
I am not sedevacantist because I believe that, although well meaning among some of its adherents, it is a false solution to the crisis in the Church. Worse, it might have been started with evil intentions. It does not have squeaky clean origins.
I don’t think it’s a solution to call oneself a Catholic and in turn reject what you think is the hierarchy on just about everything. It was Jesus who prayed for St. Peter so that his faith should not fail and to confirm his brethren. Ultramontanism is Catholic term, so thank you for calling sedevacantists that.
I don’t think you guys will ever completely understand the situation until you remove from your minds this puritan notion that for the Church to be valid, everything it says and does has to one-hundred per cent perfect. While God is perfect, man is not. From King David to St. Peter, our greatest men have erred and will continue to in this lifetime. God used them despite their flaws because of His mercy and love for us, and He will continue to used flawed men to achieve His divine will. The Church has divine origins, but its earthly stewards do not. We have to accept this and move on.
It’s impossible to reform the Church from the outside. It must done within, and to be within we have to be in Communion with Rome. The enemies of the Church are counting on its fractionation, and sedevacantism plays right into this.
On another note, I can’t access Steve Speray’s article on Fatima. If you know where I can read a copy of it, would most appreciate that.
That’s your problem. You identify the Catholic Church as a Church which errors through its popes, bishops and priests. A church with a hierarchy enacting harmful laws, liturgies, and evil morals such as allowing the blessing of homos and giving Holy Communion to those in adultery. The question is if it does all these things why be united to it especially if it’s not any better than Protestantism? In fact, it’s worse.
The sedevacantist sees this as impossible because they believe the Catholic Church is indefectible and that the gates of hell will not prevail against it as Christ promised. It’s true that members in the hierarchy can be corrupt but they cannot be apostates or heretics. Reforming a Church divided against itself will never work either. Those in charge of what you call the Catholic Church are in control and won’t allow fringe little traditionalists to stop them.
In order to remain Catholic, one must be faithful to the consistent teachings of the Church and align oneself to it and follow the bishops and priests who are doing the same.
I don’t know how to access his website because he has set it to private. You might be able to contact him some other way.
I admit it. My position may not be harmonious, for lack of a better term, but is yours any better? Sedevacantism has the church going into a temporal defection awaiting restoration at some indeterminate point in the future.
It’s only better in the sense that it’s the only option to hold to it as explained above. It’s not necessarily better in the sense in which we have a good solution. I’m sure you’ve heard of the thesis of Bp. Sanborn, the Imperfect Council proposed by Bp. Roy, and others who maintain that we can only get a pope by way of a miracle. They are all nice attempts but unrealistic and slightly absurd for multiple reasons. Nevertheless, the idea of needing a pope is there and I think that is a good intention.
I notice that you say below that sedevacantism offers separation and therefore is schism. That would be correct if what you believe is the Catholic Church is in fact the Catholic Church, however we don’t believe it can be the Catholic Church. We believe it’s schism when one believes somebody is in fact pope and refuses submission to him such as the SSPX. We would gladly obey Robert Prevost-Angelo Roncalli (Leo XIV-John XXIII) but their manifest apostasy betrays our conscience.
Hello Timothy,
You may login into and request access to my website or email me at catholicwarrior@juno.com and I’ll send you a copy via email. I have placed my website on private permanently. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to email me.
Sincerely,
Steven Speray
Ultimately we don’t even know what Fatima is, the third secret was never made public.
Which is odd since if the Church really believed Fatima was true, then why keep it secret? Wouldn’t you tell everyone what the Blessed Virgin Mary said? The Church never did the consecration for Russia, so it can be said the Church never really believed in Fatima. It’s kinda like the whole faith alone vs. works debate, which is kind of silly IMO. B/C If you really believed in Christ you would do what he commands. How much do you believe in him when you won’t follow the 10 commandments?
The whole concept of secrets doesn’t feel very Christian to me anyways, as Catholics aren’t we supposed to give testament to the truth? to be a light upon a hill?
As someone who takes the Sedevacantist position I don’t get into the debates over it much. They always seem to break down into a rabbinic pilpul session over theological issues which take a lifetime of training to understand.
My support for Sedevacantism is that the Novus ordo is not the Catholic Church established by Christ, they are two separate religions, this should be manifestly obvious to anyone who compares the two.
Ultimately I view the Church in eclipse as being similar to both the age of heresies which popped up after the Roman Persecutions and the Great Western Schism, where there were saints in both camps.
I think as long as we keep the faith that is what matters.
I think both R&R and Sede agree that there is a crisis in Roman Catholicism, whether its fallible errors taking precedence in Catholic teaching (R&R side) or the Church being eclipsed by an imposter Church (sedevacantist side). The outcome seems to be the same from either position.
The R&R side does not really offer a solution because it doesn’t really know how to deal with the crisis. Sedevacantism offers separation (schism in my opinion) as the solution, which creates a new set of problems (where is God’s visible Church?, Who has Apostolic succession to lead this breakaway Church?). No one really seems to have the valid solution. We have to admit either that we are in the false church to begin with or that God is testing us and we must endure with what we have. As you say, we can still follow his law regardless of what happens and regardless of who is correct.
But, yes, definitely Fatima smells rotten. As you point out, Christ is truth revealed, not concealed, as in the occult world of secrets, gurus, and man-made hierarchies (mystery schools). Fatima and its supposed secrets is its own mystery school. Whether a consecration was made (apparently three times) or not is sort of irrelevant at this point. Russia has no changed its ways and is certainly not leading a Christian revival as so many naively believe.
I personally don’t expect to a see a solution ever until the return of Christ. With that being said, I have written many articles on sedevacantism explaining the visible Church, apostolic succession, etc. My favorite articles are the two where we have the example of St. Vincent Ferrer who withdrew allegiance to the Avignon pope making him a sedevacantist till after the election of Martin V. It would not be schism to withdraw from an antipope as we are doing with the impostor popes now. Things are far worse today than in St. Vincent’s time, because the true Church doesn’t have altar girls, special blessings for Sodomites, and women lectors and “extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist,” etc. etc. If this is the Catholic Church, then it’s the greatest hypocritical religion of all time for condemning what it has become OR it’s not the Catholic Church. However, I understand the confusion, misunderstandings, and fear that comes with leaving what’s considered the Catholic Church. You also have to beware of sedevacantists themselves. Many of them are no more Catholic than the Vatican 2 folks. I’m actually tired of arguing all the points and have made my website private. When “Catholics” don’t even believe in the Natural law, it’s time to call it quits and work on my own salvation. I hope this little comment will get the minds thinking deeply and consider the possibilities. I’m still searching and learning and realize there’s much, much more. May God have mercy on us all!
Thank you Steven, I agree. Its my personal belief that when Christ comes again he will restore all good things, Perhaps Christ himself will be the last Pope? If heaven comes down to earth as foretold in revelation then perhaps it is not such a farfetched idea.
Tim – You and Steven have moved me out of the Fatima camp, congratulations. I know you’ve put a lot of hard work researching it and taken a lot of flack.
I won’t say that Sedevacantism is problem free, there’s no real path forwards to restoring the Church as she once was, but then again none of the other options have a path forward either. At least we still have valid Priests, valid sacraments, and valid Mass so as far as all the things you need to be a good Catholic, those things still exist and can be found without too much trouble.
Ultimately it comes down to having the faith, as St. Paul writes in Galatians (1:8) “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.”
Come to think of it this ties in nicely to Fatima, so I’ll end here 🙂
Definitely ties into Fatima. An angel preaching Marian-centric, millenarianist false future restoration.
So, when are you going to pray to pachamama, attend a mosque, and receive the Fiducia Supplicans “blessing” with your macho🏳️🌈? After all, if you reject sedevacantism, “what’s the problem”? Your post-Pius XII “popes” approve all of this!
As for your speculations and blah-blah-blah against Our Lady, I subscribe to what Saint Louis IX says about blasphemers: that you would deserve a sword driven into your guts. I curse this blog of yours; cursed too be the British Empire and the USA that you defend so much. May the USA be destroyed and balkanized so that you might weep tears of blood—indeed, the blood of the Japanese catholics killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki is on your hands, just like the blood of the germans killed in Dresden and in Eisenhower’s death camps!
You’re controlled opposition at the same level as the eurasanists you hate so much!
I agree! You have to be truly possessed by the devil to deny the apparitions of Our Lady of Fátima and the miracles she performed. This blog has turned into a latrine!!! Pure trash!!! I went over a year without visiting this blog, and now I’ll never waste my time visiting it again!!! It has sunk to the lowest possible level.
More possessed than someone who fails to discern the devil in hidden places?
It’s unbelivable the obsession, fanaticism and hatred that are being spread.
I believe the Fatimist and Sedevacantists are unbeatable in this regard.
I guess it’s as simple as extreme beliefs drawing extreme people. Michael Hoffman called it first. So called Trads think the more hyper-Marian they are, the more trad, and right, they are.
I do not express judgement on whether Fatima was authentic or not, but it is a fact that esotericists of the traditionalist school have used Fatima in their push for a Eurasian empire, which project has been spearheaded by the gnostic Aleksandr Dugin, also of the traditionalist school. Jean Parvulesco, whose disciple Dugin has been, was at the root of the adoption of eurasianism by traditionalist esotericists and per extension, within the European political Right. Parvulesco was also connected to Raymond Abellio, and Abellio was connected to Pierre Plantard (and to Eugène Deloncle of the synarchist Cagoule); those three men all claimed to be Catholics but were in fact esotericists, and Plantard’s influence was at the origin of the SSPX founded by Marcel Lefebvre, which also allowed Rama Coomaraswamy to teach at its seminary in America; Rama Coomaraswamy was the son of Ananda Coomaraswamy, one of the founders of the traditionalist school, and he carried resemblance to Sufi-followers of the traditionalist René Guénon like Seyyed Hossein Nasr and the Sufi sect “Maryamiyya” founded by Fritjof Schuon.
Basically, people like Parvulesco claimed that the star Venus, called “Sophia” by gnostics, appeared in Fatima with a geopolitical project for the foundation of a New Europe as part of a Eurasian empire ruled by occultistic priest-kings with its central seat of power in Moscow; Parvulesco deemed Putin to be chosen for the realisation of that project. The doctrine of Parvulesco was rooted in the synarchism of Alexandre d’Alveydre and his concept of secret masters of Agartha, which was also adopted into theosophy by Helena Blavatsky (the theosophic concept of “ascended masters”). It was under the influence of the synarchism of Plantard, who also adhered to the concept of occultistic priest-kings, that the “great monarch” theme has been spread in SSPX circles. He invented his fictitious “Priory of Sion”, intending it to be a myth on which to build a synarchist New Europe.
Dugin adopted the esoteric eurasianism of Parvulesco, and as a gnostic he deems the West to be under the influence of “the demiurge” and Moscow a counterforce of “Sophia” that leads her servants to nuclear warfare as a gnostic eschaton destroying the “world of darkness”. He expressed his gnostic doctrine in his article “The Gnostic”, published in 1995 in “Limonka” of the National Bolshevik Party.
Gnostics claimed that the things of solid matter were made by the star Saturn, trapping physical light into a prison of solid matter which they called the “world of darkness”; they called Saturn “the demiurge”, a world-builder, and pretended that he was the biblical Creator in the book of Genesis. The gnostics claimed to serve the star Venus (“Sophia”) and that she opposed Saturn, plotting to free light from the prison of solid matter. According to their doctrine the serpent in Gan-Eden was a servant of Sophia, and that doctrine is the dark root of traditional satanism. Dugin, following that doctrine, deems nuclear warfare a work of Sophia to free the aeon Gaia from her prison of solid physicality and her children from the prisons of their physical bodies, effecting a return to the “pleroma”. As a gnostic he deems human bodies to be evil and mass death through cataclysmic warfare a good thing.
Dugin claims that Moscow opposes an atlanticist New World Order representing the New Age theosophy of Alice Bailey and the astrological “age of Aquarius” and that traditionalistic eurasianists are an astrological counterforce to Aquarius; he thus deems eurasianism versus atlanticism to be a cosmic battle. Dugin showed his mind on that in his article “The Star of the Invisible Empire: Jean Parvulesco” for “Zavtra” in 1994.
All forms of esotericism (including the traditionalist school rooted in hermeticism and gnosticism) are at their core pantheistic shamanistic paganism and thus contrary to Catholic monotheism; Catholics must therefore oppose the traditionalistic esotericism which attempts to infiltrate the Catholic Church. And as a European I oppose eurasianism which seeks to subject the European continent to Moscow; I view Europeans who adhere to it as traitors to the European peoples.
Wow. That’s very interesting, Harj. I’m going to have to look into this Parvulesco character. I wonder if somehow this goddess figure they all seem to worship, perhaps even posing as the Virgin Mary, will be the key to “liberating” the world from the evil Western unipolar system.
I do not know what to think of Fatima; in the actual words ascribed to it is not seen the politico-religious role that Fatima adherents now give to Russia. Fatima spoke of a period of peace following a conversion of Russia to Catholicism but not of an era of international religious renewal under a Moscovite geopolitical leadership.
However, Parvulesco used Fatima to further his esoteric-political idea of a Eurasian empire and wanted occultists to bring about a convergence of the Russian Orthodox Church with the Church of Rome in that context. From the Wikipedia article “Jean Parvulesco”:
“He later wrote geopolitical articles in various publications, including the daily newspaper Combat, advocating the creation of a “Paris–Berlin–Moscow axis” to counter “Anglo-Saxon hegemony,” a concept previously advanced by Gabriel Hanotaux and mentioned by Raymond Abellio in the second volume of his memoirs Les Militants.”
That man is the cause of the adoption of eurasianism by the European New Right (“Nouvelle Droite”), which in my country is represented by Robert Steuckers, a personal friend of Dugin who is said to have introduced National Bolshevism to him. That is why Dugin said that they are the architects of the New Right.
Since Alexandre d’Alveydre and his concept of secret masters occultists have had an obsession with pagan Asia, and I see therein the black hand of the demonic powers that occultists serve, which seek to raise the dark East against the descendants of the historical Catholic Europe. You can see some of that orientalist obsession referred to in the writings of Markus Osterrieder on Russian occultism called: “From Synarchy to Shambhala: The Role of Political Occultism and Social Messianism in the Activities of Nicholas Roerich”.
My own political view to counter the phenomenon is pan-europeanism to build up a united Europe as its own geopolitical force that has sovereignty over the European continent and that can withstand Moscow and the gathered forces of Asia; not the masonic version of Coudenhove-Kalergi, but a Catholic integralist version combined with white ethnopolitics.
Thanks so much for sharing this information, Harj. This could be key to solving not only Fatima but its uses in the geopolitical realm. I asked this question on X:
Fatima’s period of peace is highly millenarianist, which is anathema to the Catholic faith. How did the Vatican fail to discern this and instead approve the apparition? That alone is enough to dismiss it, but of course there are many more problems with Fatima.
You got to wonder if Parvulesco’s “Paris–Berlin–Moscow axis” is based on the Grand Orient Masonic connections between the three powers.
I actually agree with premillennial eschatology, and though it is controversial I have seen no evidence that it has ever been condemned in a dogmatic canon by a pope or general council; in fact, I believe it can never be condemned thus because the doctrine is required for the consistency of biblical prophecy and it was received by Saint Irenaeus of Lyon from the Apostle John through Saint Polycarp of Smyrna.
However, according to the premillennial doctrine the visible millennial reign of Christ on earth takes place after His parousia (not before), which happens at the beginning of the seventh millennium of creation (the seventh day of the millennial week). After the millennial reign the general resurrection, the final judgement and the renewal of the earth take place at the beginning of the eighth millennium (the beginning of eternity), corresponding to the day of Christ’s resurrection (the day after sabbath, the eighth day).
But Fatima adherents speak of a general or quasi general conversion of temporal powers to Catholicism before the parousia, and I do not believe that will happen. It has never happened since the Ascension of Jesus into heaven, even at the height of the temporal influence of the Church of Rome during the pontificate of Innocent III (the christianitas with Catholic temporal powers was even then a bastion surrounded by pagan darkness), and a universal Christian governance on earth will not happen before the parousia.
There is a tendency to dream of temporal victories and triumphs for Catholicism, but Christians must not forget that as they await the return of their Master, they will have difficulties and tribulations.
Timothy Fitzpatrick: “You got to wonder if Parvulesco’s “Paris–Berlin–Moscow axis” is based on the Grand Orient Masonic connections between the three powers.”
Parvulesco and Dugin spoke of the UK and the USA as island kingdoms and sea-powers, and they wanted the Asiatic and European landmasses to form a structured continuum to contest the dominance of the sea-powers.
Regarding freemasonry, though, I came across a quote from Parvulesco’s ramblings in his book “Le retour des grands temps” (“The return of the great times”), the chapter “La mission occulte de Julius Evola” (“The occult mission of Julius Evola”):
“À cette enseigne, l’Église, la Franc-Maçonnerie et le Judaïsme s’y trouvaient directement concernés dans leur double éidétique, intact, persistant virginalement dans l’invisible, et c’est la convergence, l’intégration et les épousailles abyssales de ces Trois Instances qui constitueront alors l’immaculée conception du Nouvel Un, de l’Un final demandant à émerger une nouvelle foi à travers l’identité suprahistorique de la “Roma Ultima”.”
English: “In this respect the Church, Freemasonry and Judaism would there find themselves directly concerned in their double eidetic, intact, virginally persisent in the invisible, and it is the convergence, the integration and the abyssal nuptials of these Three Instances that will constitute then the immaculate conception of the New One, of the final One demanding to emerge once again throughout the suprahistorical identity of the “Roma Ultima”.”
Parvulesco spoke of a “Roma Principia” (“First Rome”) as a cosmic force manifesting geopolitically and of Rome as such re-emerging as a “Roma Ultima” (“Final Rome”) in which he wanted to see the Church, freemasonry and Jewish kabbalah converged. Dugin identifies Moscow with Parvulesco’s re-emerging imperial Rome.
Note his blasphemous use of the words “immaculate conception” for his paganistic concept.
Both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches tend towards partial preterism as their general eschatological views. Clerics may not use this term, but when you read the Church Fathers and chart history, it’s partial preterism that dominates. Premillennialism is definitely out. The Seventy Weeks prophecy alone invalidates premillennialism. Once you remove the Seventy Weeks prophecy as a future event from the premillennial house, it all begins to crumble. I don’t see a way around this.
But it’s interesting that you as a premillennialist see Fatima’s millennialism as bankrupt.
Fatimists tend to believe the lie that Soviet Communism collapsed, because then they can entertain the rest of the Fatima narrative. To admit that the errors of Russia have spread and that Russia’s consecration was of no effect, they have to forget about the entire Fatima event, which they don’t want to do because they fixated on signs and wonders, which our Lord warned us not to do.
My view has certainly been a minority position in the Latin Church since Saint Augustine, but originally, before the definition of the biblical canon, it was those who denied the divine inspiration of the book of Apocalypse who denied premillennialism while those who accepted its divine inspiration also accepted premillennialism. After the definition of the canon (which included the book of Apocalypse) opponents of premillennialism reinterpreted the millennial reign.
Furthermore, I do not deem the events of the Seventy Weeks prophecy to be in the future; I do not know why you think premillennialism depends on that idea.
Regarding Fatima; adherents have merged the great monarch theme and the words ascribed to Fatima, so that they read a vast Catholic empire into the Fatima prediction of a period of peace. About the great monarch theme it can be noted that Adrien Péladan was spreading that idea in the 19th century in his work “Dernier mot des prophéties”; his sons, Adrien and Joséphin Péladan, were rosicrucians, the latter of whom took the esoteric name “Sar Mérodack” referring to the Babylonian Marduk. The great monarch idea was also spread by naundorffists, adherents of Karl Wilhelm Naundorff who was an occultist whose son Adelberth Naundorff founded the theosophic lodge “Post Nubila Lux” in the Netherlands. Later André Lesage, a friend of Marcel Lefebvre, spread the great monarch theme among the followers of Lefebvre, claiming Davidic ancestry for the kings of France in his work “Ascendances davidiques des rois de France”, showing influence of Pierre Plantard who blasphemously claimed that the Merovings were descended from Jesus.