(Disclaimer: the author of this article is a sedevacantist—a position which I firmly reject. However, the article focuses mainly on the Fatima apparition and its arguments are well supported. Generally, it seems free of bias and is an important and timely topic; therefore, I have obtained permission from the author to repost it here. —Timothy Fitzpatrick)
By Steven Speray
May 13, 2026 Anno Domini
We are not bound to believe in private revelations. When the Church presents liturgies or churches in honor of a private revelation such as an apparition, it doesn’t imply the revelation is true and must be believed. Our faith doesn’t depend on them at all.
A liturgy or church in honor of an apparition may appear that the Church believes in it, but this is a matter of perspective. It would appear the Church, at one time, believed popes could be deposed. It would appear that it believed the Roman line during the Great Western Schism was the true line. These opinions are just opinions.
What is not an opinion is the Church saying a private revelation is worthy of belief. When the Church says a private revelation is worthy of belief, it means it’s free from doctrinal or moral error, and this declaration must be accepted and believed. However, the Church is not saying the revelation is free from historical inaccuracies, silly ideas, fraud, or demonic activity. It may have all of the above.
The Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda was approved by the Church. However, there are errors in the work. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scripture. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification “on account of the book”. [1]
Yet, in 1900, Pope Leo XIII granted an Apostolic Blessing to a Canadian lay woman who informed the pope of printing a book of all the instructions found at the end of each chapter in The Mystical City of God. Pope Leo XIII then ordered the book to be printed on the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome. The book is titled Sublime doctrine de la Mère de Dieu sur les vertus chrétiennes (extrait de la ‘Cité mystique de Dieu’ par le Vén. Marie d’Agreda- Rome, Impr.de la Sacrée Congrégation de la Propagande, 1900. vii + 403pp.+ frontispiece.)
When I wrote about the problems with the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe [2], I discovered problems with the Fatima apparitions.
Much of what we’re told by Lucia of Fatima comes from her memoirs twenty years after the apparitions.
Bishop José Alves Correia da Silva approved the 1917 Fatima apparitions including the later apparitions in Spain as part of the Fatima message. For instance, Lucia claims that Our Lady appeared on December 10, 1925 at Pontevedra, to manifest Her Heart pierced with thorns, and to request the practice of the communion of reparation on the five First Saturdays of the month. The same bishop sanctioned the First Saturdays devotion on September 13, 1939.
According to Lucia, Our Lady came back one more time, on June 13, 1929, at Tuy, to ask for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, which is also included as part of the overall approval of Fatima.
The 1930 approval of Fatima is interesting despite the problems the Church noticed during its investigation.
With all charity, respect to the Church, and all those who strongly believe in Fatima, I would like to bring up some of those seriously troubling problems about Fatima. If we were in normal times, I would have submitted this to the Holy See, but under the circumstances, this is impossible. Also, due to the same set of circumstances, I believe this information is critical for Catholics and the continued questioning to what happened to the Church since the death of Pope Pius X in 1914. The Second Vatican Council didn’t come out of thin air. Who’s really responsible for this Great Revolt that’s been brewing long before Vatican 2? Does Fatima hold a key?
The following information comes from the Critical Documentation of Fatima at fatima_critical1.pdf
In case one thinks the documentation is fake, one can also find much of the info in the 1950 book The True Story of Fatima | EWTN by Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C.
First Problem
Clothing and jewelry that’s not proper for Our Lady
The children described Our Lady:
“The attire consisted of a white cloak that reached from the head to the bottom of the skirt, gold from the waist down, with the strings crossing it, and from top to bottom, and the edges were more closely spaced. The skirt was white all over, with gold strings running along and across, but only reaching to the knee; a white coat, not gold, with only two or three strings at the cuffs; no shoes, white stockings, not gold; around the neck was a gold chain with a medal at the tips; her hands were raised; she had very small buttons on her ears, very close to her ears; she parted her hands when she spoke; she had black eyes; she was of medium height.” (emphasis mine) (Fatima Doc. 1 1917-05-c.27 Interrogation of Father Manuel Marques Ferreira, parish priest of Fátima, to Lúcia de Jesus Santos about the first apparition.)
The apparition doesn’t appear to be Our Lady, especially with a skirt reaching only to the knee, with white stockings, necklace, and earrings. Imagine an image of Our Lady as described being reproduced and placed in churches to be venerated. The image shown above is the best most reverent image I could generate based on the children’s description. It should not be a problem having a statue as described in church by an apparition approved as worthy of belief, but it is a huge problem!
Second Problem and Serious Issue
Two Major False Prophecies from Fatima
If we go back to the day of the “miracle of the sun” Lucia was telling everyone on Oct. 13, 1917 that World War 1 would end that day. After the “miracle” of the sun on Oct. 13, Father Manuel Marques Ferreira interviewed Lucia on Oct. 16. Lucia tells him that Our Lady told her:
“I want to tell you not to offend Our Lord anymore; that they pray the rosary to Our Lady; build a little chapel here for Our Lady of the Rosary (Lúcia is unsure whether it was like that: build a little chapel here, I am Our Lady of the Rosary); the war ends today; wait here for your military, very soon.”
In another interview three days later on Oct. 19, 1917, she told Father Manuel Nunes Formigão STD, JCD:
She [Our Lady] said: “The war ends today; wait here for your soldiers very soon.”
Fr Formigão: Did she say: “wait here for your military” or “wait here for your soldiers”?
She said: “Wait here for the military.”
Fr Formigão: But look, the war is still going on!… The newspapers report that there have been fights since the thirteenth!… How can this be explained, if Our Lady said that the war ended on that day?
Lucia: I don’t know. I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on the 13th. I don’t know anything else
Fr Formigão: Some people say that they heard you say on that day that Our Lady had declared that the war would end soon. Is this true?
[Lucia] I said it just as Our Lady had said it.
Fr Formigão also asked Jacinta on the same day:
Did she say that the war would end that day or that it would end soon?
Jacinta: Our Lady said that when she got to heaven, the war would end.
Fr Formigão: But the war isn’t over yet!
Jacinta: It is ending, it is ending
Fr Formigão: But when will it end?
Jacinta: I think it ends on Sunday.
In yet another interview following Oct. 13, Father António dos Santos Alves writes:
[Our Lady] told [the children] that she was Our Lady of the Rosary; that the war ended that day; that our soldiers would soon come; that they were to build a chapel to Our Lady of the Rosary on the site of the apparition and that the people amend their sins that have greatly offended her Son.
If Lucia misunderstood back when she actually heard Our Lady, how is it that she would remember so clearly 20 years later when writing her memoirs?
The excuse given was that exhaustive interrogating to exhausted children caused them to get the date wrong. That might be the case for little Jacinta, but Lucia doubled-down, even triple-downed her assertion that the war would end on Oct. 13, 1917. The end of the war date would be one thing you would remember and Lucia most certainly remembered it!
This huge contradiction and weird description of Our Lady’s appearance are overlooked by the “miracle of the sun” and massive influence of the people in persuading the authorities to accepting the whole thing and approving belief in it.
Bottom line, Lucia got it wrong repeatedly, which is highly unlikely, indicating a false apparition. If she got it wrong so badly within a couple of days, how can we trust anything that she said, not to mention what she recounts by memory twenty years later as seen in her memoirs? Her own parish priest Father Manuel Marques Ferreira never believed the story even after the “miracle” of the sun. He thought it was all demonic!
The failed second prophecy is far worse!
Second False Prophecy and the Third Secret
Lucia told Father Augustin Fuentes on December 26, 1957,
“Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way but without giving any importance to Her message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent.
Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives? It will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance. I am not able to give any other details because it is still a secret. By the will of the Blessed Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima can know the secret. Both have chosen, however, not to open it in order not to be influenced by it.
This is the third part of the Message of Our Lady, which will remain secret until 1960.
Tell them, Father, that many times the most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation.
Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. 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.
According to Lucia, part of the third secret is also part of the great chastisement that happens between 1957 and 1960.
Cardinal Ottaviani asked Lucia 1955 why not before 1960, and she said, “Because then it will seem clearer (mais claro).” In fact, she stated, “it cannot be made known before 1960.” When pressed to why it had to be in 1960, she and Bishop José Correia da Silva replied to Canon Barthas in 1946: “Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.”
We see wars and people dying in the first two secrets. In the third secret, we hear about another major chastisement which will happen between 1957 and 1960.
Lucia said the world (not the Church) was going to be punished severely. The world would understand the contents of the third secret when revealed in 1960 just as people would understand the second secret when revealed after the fact. (World War 2 and revealed by Lucia in 1941.)
Logically, the election of Roncalli couldn’t be this part of the secret because in 1960, virtually everyone believed him to be a true pope and rejoiced something Lucia said would not happen. There would be no rejoicing.
The secret couldn’t say we have a fake pope only to be revealed by a fake pope. Therefore, it couldn’t have referred to the pope as some type of imposter pope.
Another critical point is that Lucia said, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”
If we draw an inference that this might mean apostasy in other places around the world, where would this be seen in 1960 from something from within 2 years prior to 1960?
The question is what kind of terrible chastisement would befall on the whole world that could be seen by 1960 that would be as big as the first two secrets to verify the prophecy was true? Again, we’re talking about part of the third secret because that is what Lucia said.
China was the only country to suffer a major chastisement with the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), which caused the Great Chinese Famine, resulting in an estimated 15 to 55 million deaths. This is huge for China, but not the world.
Surely, the great chastisement Lucia is referring would be greater than China’s catastrophe.
Think of all the possibilities and what we find is absolutely nothing!
If any other religion put something out like this, we Catholics would call it out for what it is, a false prophecy, because that’s simply what it is.
We have another false prophecy. However, the Church did not approve this prophecy as told in 1957 as worthy of belief. It was unknown when approved in 1930. Is Lucia not trustworthy? Does the whole Fatima event and the false prophecies go hand in hand? Absolutely!
Third Problem and Serious Issue
Too many exceptions are needed.
Fatima is nothing like Lourdes and St. Bernadette. The message at Lourdes was nothing new to Catholicism. It confirmed a recent dogma. The three secrets were for Bernadette herself. Its message was simple with a miraculous healing spring as a reward for having faith. It was a beautiful and wonderful event in every way. No real problems, no real confusions.
Fatima on the other hand has everything Lourdes doesn’t: Problems, Confusions, Demands or else, and Major prophecies that don’t come as stated.
When the angel appeared in the beginning, he gave the children Communion. Jacinta and Francesco hadn’t even received their First Communion yet. When Francesco received from the Chalice, he asked Lucia what he had received because he was unaware of what it was.
There are several strange things about this occurrence. In the West, we don’t receive from the Chalice and preparation and knowledge of Communion is absolutely demanded for those of the age of reason. Infants don’t need to know because they are not able. However, when the Sacraments are given to those of the age of reason, it’s imperative to understand what’s being received except perhaps in cases of danger of death.
If the angel is truly from Heaven, why would he go against the norms of the Church on such an important thing as Holy Communion? How would or could you know he was truly from Heaven if the only way to test the spirit are by the norms of the Church?
In the West, we fast before Communion, but are we to expect the children had no breakfast that day? It’s possible, but it seems like one exception after another is needed to legitimize the event as coming from Heaven.
We are not told about the angel story in 1916 or 1917 but years later in 1937 and 1941 by Lucia through her memoirs. Why did it take over twenty years before we hear about this incredible angel story?
The problem with the story is the strange way Holy Communion was given to the children under the circumstances. St. John tells us, “believe not every spirit, but try the spirits if they be of God.” (I John 4:1) We test the spirits with Catholic belief and practice. Yet, the actions of the angel were contrary to Catholic belief and practice. However, the Church didn’t approve of the angel story because it came from the memoirs of Lucia over twenty years after the fact.
Lastly, if there’s no doctrinal problems with Fatima, does that mean receiving Communion without knowledge what’s being received at the age of reason not problematic doctrinally? If problematic, does that not call into question the approval by the Church? Should the Church not have warned or explained this problematic detail? Does the approval of Fatima call into question whether it’s really the Church doing the approving, especially in light of the missed prophecies?
Other problems with Fatima are covered in the Footnotes. However, these three suffice to show Fatima is not from Heaven.
What about the Miracle of the Sun?
The miracle of the sun was also seen many times at Medjugorja. I had friends who not only saw the miracle of the sun at Medjugorja, but their rosary beads turned to gold on each bead as they prayed it. They were strong believers in John Paul 2 and the Vatican 2 religion because of Medjugorja. Yet, these apparitions have blunt heresies even by Vatican 2 standards.
I have another friend who saw the miracle of the sun at Garabandal. The apparitions of Garabandal from 1961 to 1965 also have other spectacular miracles, yet its prophecies also failed miserably proving it to be a false apparition.
What I find interesting is that not all 70,000 people saw the “miracle” on that day as reported by apparitionists. Many reported seeing nothing unusual, which of course included the many skeptics, atheists, etc. the very ones that would need to see to believe. Everyone described the event quite differently, too.
The skeptical explanations for the “miracle” are also quite reasonable. In Pentecostal settings, we see how the power of suggestion make masses of people believe they’ve been “slain in the spirit.” I’ve seen it first-hand. “Speaking in tongues” is another example. We definitely see the power of suggestion at Fatima and many other places. Combine that with starring at the sun for a long period of time and then expecting to see something unusual. If a real weather condition happened on that day with all the other conditions, the event would certainly be magnified.
We read about this very thing in the book “God and the Sun of Fatima” written by the priest, physicist and philosopher of science, Father Stanley L Jaki, who believed in Fatima.
Fr. Jaki tells of the devout Catholic lawyer and Third Order Franciscan Domingo Pintos Coelho who was there in the Cova on Oct. 13, 1917. He published what he witnessed that day on Oct. 16th in the local Catholic newspaper titled “Ordem.” (Keep in mind that in 1917, permission to write and publish on the Church was required as seen in canon law.)
Jaki didn’t like what Coelho wrote and breaks down everything he wrote to make Coelho appear to look irresponsible and/or faithless. However, Jaki was a strong believer in the miracle and he wouldn’t let anything get in his way in spreading what he believed was a miracle, but the fact remains that there is another side to the story.
Coelho wrote (p. 53): The leading newspapers began to speak of this case with great frequency and it will therefore be good not to reach a wrong conclusion before considering some ideas that rightly present themselves in cases of this nature. It is clear that as Catholics we accept the full possibility of the miracle. God, since He made the laws which rule natural phenomena, can also alter or suspend them. Simply put, a miracle is an exception. And exceptions are not presumed. They require certain proof. The Catholic Church has constantly insisted on the matter of proofs before it would agree to establishing the miraculous character of any fact of series of facts.
He continued in the next few pages…
In reference to what happened on Saturday the thirteenth, we can give witness because we were there, not as a pilgrim, note that well, but as a curious spectator.
From eleven until one-thirty the rain was constant and driven by a strong wind; a frankly rough and disagreeable weather which the enormous crowd of many thousands of people endured with excellent humor, without shelter other than rain hats and the vehicles, since not even one building is to be found in the vicinity.
Thirty-seven and a half minutes after one o’clock—or noon by solar time—was the hour set for the vision with which it was hoped that the phenomena in the heavens would coincide.
At this moment it continued to rain.
Some moments later the rain slackened and at one forty-five it stopped altogether. The sun, until then concealed, showed itself among the clouds that moved fairly fast. Because their density was variable, the veil which they threw over the king of stars [sun] was diaphanous. Like the multitude, we then looked toward the sun with rapt attention, and through the clouds, we saw it under new aspects—new for us, mark it well… Now surrounded by reddish flames, now with a ring of yellow or bright violet, now seemingly enlivened by a very rapid rotating movement, now even apparently detaching itself from the sky, approaching the earth, and giving forth a strong heat…
Why deny it? These phenomena, which we had never before witnessed, impressed us greatly. Among the crowds, a collective psychology established itself. And generally speaking there passed over the vast majority of that crowd a tremendous wave of faith that was very moving.
But then Coelho continues to explain….
One doubt remained with us, however.
Was what we saw in the sun an exceptional thing? Or could it be reproduced in analogous circumstances?
Now it was precisely this analogy of circumstances that presented itself to us yesterday [Sunday]. We could see the sun half overcast with clouds as on Saturday. And sincerely, we saw on that day the same succession of colors, the same rotary movement, etc.
(p. 57)
Coelho concluded his article:
Eliminating, then, the only extraordinary fact, what remains? Right now, the statements of the three children and nothing else.
It is very little.
Will the children be found sincere? We have no reason to doubt that they will be; their humble state is a guarantee of this for us.
We ask pardon for the crabbed stories of the investigators of popular belief who have attributed mysterious profit motives to the shepherds, for not believing this story without proof. Do the strongminded [espiritos fortes or freethinkers] want us to believe without proof? Very well. But with the same right we could demand from those who see in all this but Jesuit trickeries the same proofs they demand from us, regardless of whether they find them inconvenient and therefore dispense with them.
In sum, we returned from Fatima in the same state of mind in which we went there—in doubt.
Was there a miracle, were there apparitions? It is possible but between possibility and reality there is an abyss.
We will therefore continue with an open mind, benevolent, if so desired, but nothing more.
And let us be permitted to advise those who by their position and intelligence can influence others not to go beyond this limit.
(pp. 59-60)
After this article was published on Oct. 16th, 1917, Coelho published another article the next day Oct. 17, again, talking about Fatima.
If miracles are rare today, it does not mean that they can no longer occur. For example, the lives of Don Bosco, the founder of the Salesians, and of the Curé d’ Ars were full of miracles. The history of Lourdes is also a series of miracles verified with the greatest rigor. …
St. Augustine says: “A miracle should never be proclaimed when a natural explanation is possible”.
This rule has always been scrupulously observed by the Church, the teacher of truth.
Now what did we say about the case of Fatima? That we, the obscure author of these lines, had not observed any fact that would prompt us to consider as supernatural. But not only did we treat it from a personal and unauthorized point of view but in no way did we wish to disclaim the observations which others have made and which differ from ours.
We would want nothing more than to witness events to which no natural explanation can be fitted. Our disappointment was great, when on Sunday, as we said, we verified the vacuity of what on the day before had seemed to be miraculous; our disappointment was heightened since we were greatly impressed by the coincidence that the rain of three hours’ duration had stopped almost exactly at the moment when the children prayed, and that the sun then appeared in the clouds.
Simply put, it is necessary in a matter of such weight not to yield to the principle Quod vohumus facile credimus.
We therefore conclude as we did yesterday: it is fitting to replace premature enthusiasm with the most prudent reserve. If in Fatima there is something of the supernatural our holding back will not impede the march of events upon which God in His infinite wisdom has decided.
On the other hand, a fiasco following hasty exaltation would not fail to be exploited by the enemies of the Church; they are always numerous, very active, and constantly on the watch for the propitious moment for the attack.
End of Coelho.
Coelho called the “Miracle of the Sun” vacuous and he got backlash immediately by other papers. I included this report to show there was another side, which many apparitionists don’t include in their stories. Jaki was an exception.
Simply put, the “miracle” of the sun doesn’t prove a heavenly apparition. The devout Catholic lawyer and writer who witnessed the event didn’t even think it was miraculous and publicly tells us so in two articles in a Catholic magazine within a week of the “miracle”. The same so-called miracle of the sun is seen at all the modern apparition sites, which we know are false. Yet, it was this very “miracle” that has convinced most Catholics that Fatima is a true apparition from Heaven.
Conclusion
The prophecies definitely failed. Is that the fault of Fatima or Lucia? We don’t separate the two. However, we know that Garabandal was false precisely because of the false prophecies. Why are the false prophecies of Fatima overlooked?
People would rather believe in a hoax, a deception of the devil, or any lie if it makes them feel better. The pope, many bishops, and many theologians and canonists have bought into Fatima but that doesn’t mean it’s true. They bought into Our Lady of Guadalupe apparition and it’s a proven myth where the Church tells us Marcos Aquino painted the image and not a single priest historian during that time mentions Juan Diego or the apparition while telling the whole history of Mexico. They even explain the millions of converts. See footnote [2] for the proof.
The Church has declared that nothing in the Fatima apparition is heretical or dangerous morally or doctrinally. However, is it possible the Fatima apparitions are a demonic deception as a distraction to something else? For instance, what was really behind the Spanish Flu and Vaccines? See page 27 of the COVID-Report-from-Rep.-Weyler-3.pdf
Both Jacinta and Francisco Marto were killed by the Spanish Flu. 100 million people died from this chastisement that’s never mentioned by “Our Lady” of Fatima. That’s as many people as both world wars put together! How could the Spanish Flu be overlooked? How is it still overlooked? This missed cataclysmic catastrophe is enough to call into doubt the whole Fatima event as something not from Heaven! Besides the Flu, what about the vaccines? We don’t even know the real death numbers to all the vaccinated throughout the last 100 years.
What’s more, even the Chinese catastrophe is overlooked when Lucia said the whole world would suffer some great chastisement between 1957 to 1960 that never came to pass.
Another possible deception by distraction concerns the Church. Is Fatima a demonic plan hidden within the demonic plan? What was going on with the Church then? After all, following the death of Pope Pius X, his successor, Pope Benedict XV, immediately began to ease the intense crackdown on “Modernism” that had characterized the previous pontificate. One of his first moves was to remove the staunch anti-modernist Cardinal Merry del Val as Secretary of State and replaced him with the liberal Cardinal Pietro Gasparri.
In his first encyclical Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum, Benedict XV requested that the accusations of modernism stop. He writes, “23 As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline – in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See – there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.”
Other key individuals who regained freedom of action or saw their previous restrictions eased include Moderate Modernist sympathizers and scholars. The Sodalitium Pianum (a network of informants established by Pius X) was largely ended by Benedict XV. Those who had been ostracized or prevented from teaching under the anti-modernist oath were given more freedom.
Many of the French clergy who were under intense pressure during the separation of church and state (and accused of being too compromising) found more space for dialogue under Benedict XV. The anti-modernist plan under Pope Pius X never returned and we begin to see the ugly head of modernism in the hideous architecture of church building and women getting into public offices throughout the pontificates of Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII.
Are we really surprised we got a Second Vatican Council? Talk about cataclysmic doom!
We see more Fatima issues in our times with all kinds of ideas and conspiracies floating around with the 3rd secret predictions, consecration of Russia, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, etc. all of which have nothing to do with the real Gospel, and which confuse the end times as told in Scripture. There’s no end to Fatima predictions, which are borderline heretical if not heretical. Just more distractions.
All these are the bad fruits of Fatima and there’s more bad tasting fruit waiting for you in footnote [3].
We know how Pope Leo XIII in the 1880’s tells us how in his vision Christ gives the Devil the time and power to deceive the Church. Was Fatima part of that plan in the grand scheme of things?
Based on these and other problems, Fatima appears to be a real and great deception of the devil to fool the masses to distract from something far greater!
Footnotes:
[1] CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Private Revelations
[2] Problems with the Story of Our Lady of Guadalupe – Part I
Problems with the Story of Our Lady of Guadalupe – Part II
[3] Other problems with Fatima include:
Fatima becomes a tool for the Vatican 2 religion
Roncalli (“Pope John XXIII”) read the contents of the third secret. He knew the prophecy and the fact that it hadn’t come to pass. He said the third secret was not for “our times” and he refused to reveal it. Cardinal Silvio Oddi confronted him over not revealing the secret in 1960. John XXIII told Oddi, “Do not speak to me of this again.” It seems he refused to read the third secret in 1960 because he it didn’t square with his plans. Did he even believe in Fatima, since he refused to do what was supposed to be asked of him? It would appear not. In 1962, at the Second Vatican Council, John XXIII referred to the three seers of Fatima as “Prophets of Doom.”
One thing is for sure, Fatima can be useful, everyone knew it, and it was!
John XXIII called Fatima, “the center of all Christian hopes.” Fatima was used to bolster the Vatican 2 teaching on Our Lady.
Fatima was later used by John Paul 2 to legitimize his legacy as the Marian and Fatima Pope. The attempted assassination of John Paul 2 in 1981, occurred exactly at the same time as the apparition of Our Lady in Fatima, and it is believed by many Vatican 2 Catholics that Our Lady of Fatima saved the life of their beloved pope.
John Paul II visited Fatima, Portugal, three times (1982, 1991, 2000) to thank Our Lady for saving his life during the May 13, 1981, assassination attempt. He famously placed the bullet that struck him into the crown of the Fatima statue, formally consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and beatified the shepherd children Francisco and Jacinta.
The Vatican revealed what they called the third secret which stated that the “Holy Father…was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him.” It continues to say other clergy, religious, and lay people were also killed one after another in the same place.
Advertisement
The Vatican left out anything about apostasy or anything like that. As bad as their obvious fake third secret was, the Vatican also claimed the secret referred to the assassination attempt on John Paul 2.
If Sister Lucia died at some point around 1960 as many think and replaced with an imposter, the Vatican would use her to legitimize itself. For instance, the Lucia of 1984 said John Paul II’s consecration of Russia fulfilled the request of Our Lady.
She is used in many other ways that’s irrelevant insofar as this article is concerned, but the point is Vatican 2 Catholics are hooked on Fatima because it points to their “Pope” and “Saint” John Paul 2.
Whether or not the 1984 Lucia was the real one or not (I think not), Fatima is constantly in the forefront in the minds of everyone who calls himself Catholic.
A fake Lucia keeps the Fatima deception going for Vatican 2 Catholics believing John Paul 2 was great and the Vatican 2 religion is true, or perhaps expecting a pope to consecrate Russia correctly as asked. Many traditional Catholics expect a pope to consecrate Russia so that the nation converts to Catholicism. Many sedevantists are expecting a special triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary where a Church comes out of this great apostasy with a true pope because that’s how Fatima is interpreted.
We know that Our Lady would know the future as even Fatima indicates. Would she present herself at Fatima knowing full well how Fatima is used against real Catholicism with so much vagueness, confusion, and division? Perhaps, but it also seems to fit the biblical prophecy in II Thess. 2:10.
Fatima keeps people in the Vatican 2 religion.
Unnecessary cause for division among Catholics and contradiction
Almost no Catholic says the Fatima prayer in the Rosary correctly. William Thomas Walsh interviewed Lucia and she flatly denied what Fr. Jenkins of the SSPV said about it. It’s on page 225 of the 1947 book Our Lady of Fatima:
“In many books about Fatima, the prayer Our Lady asked you to say after the decades of the Rosary is given in some such form as this: ‘O my Jesus, pardon our sins, save us from the fire of hell, have mercy on the souls in Purgatory, especially the most abandoned.’ Is that correct?” “No, it is not,” she replied positively. “The correct form is the one I have written in my account of the apparition on July 13: ‘O my Jesus, pardon us, and save us from the fire of hell; draw all souls to heaven, especially those in most need.”
Advertisement
What happens when those who believe are mixed with those who don’t believe when praying the Rosary together? This may not be a big deal but the next thing I’ll mention most certainly is.
Apparitionists demand Fatima be believed and accepted when the Church demands no such thing. While it permits belief in Fatima, it doesn’t demand it. The Church doesn’t say Fatima is true.
However, the message is for the pope to do something or else. Acceptance of Fatima becomes critical.
If Fatima is true, then the pope better do it and do it right. It’s not just about believing or not believing a private revelation. Lives are at stake because Communism is the most murderous state ever seen in history. Accepting, believing, and obeying Fatima concerns the expansion of Communism and the results thereof.
There’s a threat to the world if the pope doesn’t do what’s asked in a private revelation. It really fuels the apparitionists demand for belief and in a strong way vindicates apparitionists in their position on apparitions. How can such a condition be merely a private revelation that may or may not be accepted? It just so happens that Pope Pius XII nor any Vatican 2 pope did what Our Lady of Fatima asked, so did any of them truly believe in Fatima?
Fatima is a private revelation, yet it demands belief outside of the usual parameters of the Catholic Faith, which is precisely what a private revelation can’t do or can it? We have major divisions and animosity over an apparition.
ORIGINAL FIRST DRAFT BELOW
The Great Fatima Distraction?
We are not bound to believe in private revelations. When the Church presents liturgies or churches in honor of a private revelation such as an apparition, it doesn’t imply the revelation is true and must be believed. Our faith doesn’t depend on them at all.
A liturgy or church in honor of an apparition may appear that the Church believes in it, but this is a matter of perspective. It would appear the Church, at one time, believed popes could be deposed. It would appear that it believed the Roman line during the Great Western Schism was the true line. These opinions are just opinions. The Church has opinions, too, and private revelations are one of them.
What is not an opinion is the Church saying a private revelation is worthy of belief. When the Church says a private revelation is worthy of belief, it means it’s free from doctrinal or moral error, and this declaration must be accepted and believed. However, the Church saying a private revelation, such as an apparition is worthy of belief, it doesn’t imply it’s free from historical inaccuracies, silly ideas, fraud, or demonic activity. It may have all of the above.
The Mystical City of God by Mary of Agreda was approved by the Church. However, there are errors in the work. The Catholic Encyclopedia states:
In particular instances, these visionaries have been mistaken: thus Marie de Agreda teaches, like her contemporaries, the existence of crystal heavens, and declares that one must believe everything she says, although such an obligation exists only in the case of the Holy Scripture. In 1771 Clement XIV forbade the continuation of her process of beatification “on account of the book”. [1]
Yet, in 1900, Pope Leo XIII granted an Apostolic Blessing to a Canadian lay woman who informed the pope of printing a book of all the instructions found at the end of each chapter in The Mystical City of God. Pope Leo XIII then ordered the book to be printed on the presses of the Sacred Congregation of the Propaganda in Rome. The book titled Sublime doctrine de la Mère de Dieu sur les vertus chrétiennes (extrait de la ‘Cité mystique de Dieu’ par le Vén. Marie d’Agreda- Rome, Impr.de la Sacrée Congrégation de la Propagande, 1900. vii + 403pp.+ frontispiece.)
When I wrote about the problems with the apparition of Our Lady of Guadalupe [2], I discovered problems with the Fatima apparitions.
Much of what we’re told by Lucia of Fatima comes 20 years after the apparitions.
Bishop José Alves Correia da Silva approved the 1917 Fatima apparitions including the later apparitions in Spain as part of the Fatima message. For instance, Lucia claims that Our Lady appeared on December 10, 1925 at Pontevedra, to manifest Her Heart pierced with thorns, and to request the practice of the communion of reparation on the five First Saturdays of the month. The same bishop sanctioned the First Saturdays devotion on September 13, 1939.
According to Lucia, Our Lady came back one more time, on June 13, 1929, at Tuy, to ask for the consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart, which is also included as part of the overall approval of Fatima.
The 1930 approval of Fatima is interesting considering some problems the Church noticed during its investigation.
With all charity, respect to the Church, and all those who strongly believe in Fatima, I would like to bring up some those seriously troubling issues about Fatima. The following information comes from the Critical Documentation of Fatima at fatima_critical1.pdf
In case one thinks the documentation is fake, one can also find much of the info in the 1950 book The True Story of Fatima | EWTN by Fr. John de Marchi, I.M.C.
First Issue
Our Lady’s clothing and jewelry are not proper for Our Lady
The children described Our Lady:
“The attire consisted of a white cloak that reached from the head to the bottom of the skirt, gold from the waist down, with the strings crossing it, and from top to bottom, and the edges were more closely spaced. The skirt was white all over, with gold strings running along and across, but only reaching to the knee; a white coat, not gold, with only two or three strings at the cuffs; no shoes, white stockings, not gold; around the neck was a gold chain with a medal at the tips; her hands were raised; she had very small buttons on her ears, very close to her ears; she parted her hands when she spoke; she had black eyes; she was of medium height.” (emphasis mine) (Fatima Doc. 1 1917-05-c.27 Interrogation of Father Manuel Marques Ferreira, parish priest of Fátima, to Lúcia de Jesus Santos about the first apparition.)
The bottom line, the apparition doesn’t appear to be Our Lady. If we made an image of Our Lady as described, would it be accepted by the Church, reproduced, and placed inside churches? After all, it should not be problem with a statue as described in church by an apparition approved as worthy of belief.
Second Serious Issue
Two Major False Prophecies from Fatima
If we go back to the day of the “miracle of the sun” Lucia was telling everyone on Oct. 13, 1917 that WW1 would end that day. After the “miracle” of the sun on Oct. 13, Father Manuel Marques Ferreira interviewed Lucia on Oct. 16. Lucia tells him that Our Lady told her:
“I want to tell you not to offend Our Lord anymore; that they pray the rosary to Our Lady; build a little chapel here for Our Lady of the Rosary (Lúcia is unsure whether it was like that: build a little chapel here, I am Our Lady of the Rosary); the war ends today; wait here for your military, very soon.”
In another interview three days later on Oct. 19, 1917, she told Father Manuel Nunes Formigão STD, JCD:
She [Our Lady] said: “The war ends today; wait here for your soldiers very soon.”
Fr Formigão: Did she say: “wait here for your military” or “wait here for your soldiers”?
She said: “Wait here for the military.”
Fr Formigão: But look, the war is still going on!… The newspapers report that there have been fights since the thirteenth!… How can this be explained, if Our Lady said that the war ended on that day?
Lucia: I don’t know. I only know that I heard her say that the war would end on the 13th. I don’t know anything else
Fr Formigão: Some people say that they heard you say on that day that Our Lady had declared that the war would end soon. Is this true?
[Lucia] I said it just as Our Lady had said it.
Fr Formigão also asked Jacinta on the same day:
Did she say that the war would end that day or that it would end soon?
Jacinta: Our Lady said that when she got to heaven, the war would end.
Fr Formigão: But the war isn’t over yet!
Jacinta: It is ending, it is ending
Fr Formigão: But when will it end?
Jacinta: I think it ends on Sunday.
In yet another interview following Oct. 13, Father António dos Santos Alves writes:
[Our Lady] told [the children] that she was Our Lady of the Rosary; that the war ended that day; that our soldiers would soon come; that they were to build a chapel to Our Lady of the Rosary on the site of the apparition and that the people amend their sins that have greatly offended her Son.
If Lucia misunderstood back when she actually heard Our Lady, how is it that she would remember so clearly 20 years later when writing her memoirs?
The excuse that exhaustive interrogating to exhausted children caused them to get the date wrong. That might be the case for little Jacinta, but Lucia doubled-down, even triple-downed her assertion that the war would end on Oct. 13, 1917. The end of the war date would be one thing you would remember and Lucia most certainly remembered it!
This huge contradiction and weird description of Our Lady’s appearance are overlooked by the miracle of the sun and massive influence of the people in persuading the authorities to accepting the whole thing and approving belief in it.
Bottom line, Lucia got it wrong repeatedly at the time or the apparition is false. If she got it wrong so badly within a week, how can we trust her memory twenty years later from her memoirs? Her own parish priest Father Manuel Marques Ferreira never believed the story even after the “miracle” of the sun. He thought it was all demonic!
The second prophecy is far worse!
Second False Prophecy and the Third Secret
Lucia told Father Augustin Fuentes on December 26, 1957,
“Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way but without giving any importance to Her message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent.
Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives? It will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance. I am not able to give any other details because it is still a secret. By the will of the Blessed Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima can know the secret. Both have chosen, however, not to open it in order not to be influenced by it.
This is the third part of the Message of Our Lady, which will remain secret until 1960.
Tell them, Father, that many times the most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation.
Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. 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.
According to Lucia, part of the third secret is also part the great chastisement that happens between 1957 and 1960.
Cardinal Ottaviani asked Lucia 1955 why not before 1960, and she said, “Because then it will seem clearer (mais claro).” In fact, she stated, “it cannot be made known before 1960.” When pressed to why it had to be in 1960, she and Bishop José Correia da Silva replied to Canon Barthas in 1946: “Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.”
We see wars and people dying in the first two secrets. In the third secret, we hear about another major chastisement which will happen between 1957 and 1960.
Lucia said the world (not the Church) was going to be punished severely. The world would understand the contents of the third secret when revealed in 1960 just as people would understand the second secret when revealed after the fact. (World War 2 and revealed by Lucia in 1941.)
Logically, the election of Roncalli couldn’t be this part of the secret because in 1960, virtually everyone believed him to be a true pope and rejoiced something Lucia said would not happen. There would be no rejoicing.
The secret couldn’t say we have a fake pope only to be revealed by a fake pope. Therefore, it couldn’t have referred to the pope as some type of imposter pope.
Another critical point is that Lucia said, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.”
If we draw an inference that this might mean apostasy in other places around the world, where would this be seen in 1960?
The question is what kind of terrible chastisement would befall on the whole world that could be seen by 1960 that would be as big as the first two secrets to verify the prophecy was true? Again, we’re talking about part of the third secret because that is what Lucia said.
China was the only country to suffer a major chastisement with the Great Leap Forward (1958–1962), which caused the Great Chinese Famine, resulting in an estimated 15 to 55 million deaths. This is huge for China, but not the world. Surely, the great chastisement Lucia is referring would be greater than China’s catastrophe.
Think of all the possibilities and what we find absolutely nothing!
If any other religion put something out like this, we Catholics would call it out for what it is, a false prophecy, because that’s simply what it is.
Bottom line, we have another false prophecy. However, the Church did not approve this prophecy as told in 1957 as worthy of belief. It was unknown when approved in 1930. Again, was the approval in 1930 provisional? Is Lucia not trustworthy? Does the whole Fatima event and the false prophecies go hand in hand? Absolutely!
Third Serious Issue
Too many exceptions are needed.
Fatima is nothing like Lourdes and St. Bernadette. The message at Lourdes was nothing new to Catholicism. It confirmed a recent dogma. The three secrets were for Bernadette herself. Its message was simple with a miraculous healing spring as a reward for having faith. It was a beautiful and wonderful event in every way. No real problems, no real confusions.
Fatima on the other hand has everything Lourdes doesn’t. Problems, confusions, demands or else, and major prophecies that don’t come as stated.
When the angel appeared in the beginning, he gave the children Communion. Jacinta and Francesco hadn’t even received their First Communion yet. When Francesco received from the Chalice, he asked Lucia what he had received because he was unaware of what it was.
There are several strange things about this occurrence. In the West, we don’t receive from the Chalice and preparation and knowledge of Communion is absolutely demanded for those of the age of reason. Infants don’t need to know because they are not able. However, when the Sacraments are given to those of the age of reason, it’s imperative to understand what’s being received except in cases of danger of death.
If the angel is truly from Heaven, why would he go against the norms of the Church on such an important thing as Holy Communion? How would or could you know he was truly from Heaven if the only way to test the spirit are with the norms of the Church?
In the West, we fast before Communion, but are we to expect the children had no breakfast? It’s possible, but it seems like one exception after another is needed to legitimize the event as coming from Heaven.
We are not told about the angel story in 1917 but years later in 1937 and 1941 by Lucia and her memoirs.
The bottom line is the radically strange way Holy Communion was given to the children under the circumstances, where the testing the spirit with Catholic belief and practice is impossible. However, the Church didn’t approve of this story of the Angel as it came from the memoirs of Lucia over twenty years after the fact. Again, is Lucia trustworthy and was the approval provisional?
Other problems with Fatima are covered in the Footnotes. However, these three suffice to show Fatima is not from Heaven.
What about the Miracle of the Sun?
The miracle of the sun was also seen many times at Medjugorja. I had friends who not only saw the miracle of the sun at Medjugorja, but their rosary beads turned to gold on each bead as they prayed it. They were strong believers in John Paul 2 and the Vatican 2 religion because of Medjugorja. Yet, these apparitions have blunt heresies even by Vatican 2 standards.
I have another friend who saw the miracle of the sun at Garabandal. The apparitions of Garabandal from 1961 to 1965 also have other spectacular miracles, yet its prophecies also failed miserably proving it to be a false apparition.
What I find interesting is that not all 70,000 people saw the “miracle” on that day as reported by apparitionists. Many reported seeing nothing unusual, which of course included the many skeptics, atheists, etc. the very ones that would need to see to believe. Everyone described the event quite differently, too.
The skeptical explanations for the “miracle” are also quite reasonable. In Pentecostal settings, we see how the power of suggestion make masses of people believe they’ve been “slain in the spirit.” I’ve seen it first-hand. “Speaking in tongues” is another example. We definitely see the power of suggestion at Fatima and many other places. Combine that with starring at the sun for a long period of time and then expecting to see something unusual. If a real weather condition happened on that day with all the other conditions, the event would certainly be magnified.
We read about this very thing in the book “God and the Sun of Fatima” written by the priest, physicist and philosopher of science, Father Stanley L Jaki, who believed in Fatima.
Fr. Jaki tells of the devout Catholic lawyer and Third Order Franciscan Domingo Pintos Coelho who was there in the Cova on Oct. 13, 1917. He published what he witnessed that day on Oct. 16th in the local Catholic newspaper titled “Ordem.” (Keep in mind that in 1917, permission to write and publish on the Church was required as seen in canon law.)
Jaki didn’t like what Coelho wrote and breaks down everything he wrote to make Coelho appear to look irresponsible and/or faithless. However, Jaki was a strong believer in the miracle and he wouldn’t let anything get in his way in spreading what he believed was a miracle, but the fact remains that there is another side to the story.
Coelho wrote (p. 53): The leading newspapers began to speak of this case with great frequency and it will therefore be good not to reach a wrong conclusion before considering some ideas that rightly present themselves in cases of this nature. It is clear that as Catholics we accept the full possibility of the miracle. God, since He made the laws which rule natural phenomena, can also alter or suspend them. Simply put, a miracle is an exception. And exceptions are not presumed. They require certain proof. The Catholic Church has constantly insisted on the matter of proofs before it would agree to establishing the miraculous character of any fact of series of facts.
He continued in the next few pages…
In reference to what happened on Saturday the thirteenth, we can give witness because we were there, not as a pilgrim, note that well, but as a curious spectator.
From eleven until one-thirty the rain was constant and driven by a strong wind; a frankly rough and disagreeable weather which the enormous crowd of many thousands of people endured with excellent humor, without shelter other than rain hats and the vehicles, since not even one building is to be found in the vicinity.
Thirty-seven and a half minutes after one o’clock—or noon by solar time—was the hour set for the vision with which it was hoped that the phenomena in the heavens would coincide.
At this moment it continued to rain.
Some moments later the rain slackened and at one forty-five it stopped altogether. The sun, until then concealed, showed itself among the clouds that moved fairly fast. Because their density was variable, the veil which they threw over the king of stars [sun] was diaphanous. Like the multitude, we then looked toward the sun with rapt attention, and through the clouds, we saw it under new aspects—new for us, mark it well… Now surrounded by reddish flames, now with a ring of yellow or bright violet, now seemingly enlivened by a very rapid rotating movement, now even apparently detaching itself from the sky, approaching the earth, and giving forth a strong heat…
Why deny it? These phenomena, which we had never before witnessed, impressed us greatly. Among the crowds, a collective psychology established itself. And generally speaking there passed over the vast majority of that crowd a tremendous wave of faith that was very moving.
But then Coelho continues to explain….
One doubt remained with us, however.
Was what we saw in the sun an exceptional thing? Or could it be reproduced in analogous circumstances?
Now it was precisely this analogy of circumstances that presented itself to us yesterday [Sunday]. We could see the sun half overcast with clouds as on Saturday. And sincerely, we saw on that day the same succession of colors, the same rotary movement, etc.
(p. 57)
Coelho concluded his article:
Eliminating, then, the only extraordinary fact, what remains? Right now, the statements of the three children and nothing else.
It is very little.
Will the children be found sincere? We have no reason to doubt that they will be; their humble state is a guarantee of this for us.
We ask pardon for the crabbed stories of the investigators of popular belief who have attributed mysterious profit motives to the shepherds, for not believing this story without proof. Do the strongminded [espiritos fortes or freethinkers] want us to believe without proof? Very well. But with the same right we could demand from those who see in all this but Jesuit trickeries the same proofs they demand from us, regardless of whether they find them inconvenient and therefore dispense with them.
In sum, we returned from Fatima in the same state of mind in which we went there—in doubt.
Was there a miracle, were there apparitions? It is possible but between possibility and reality there is an abyss.
We will therefore continue with an open mind, benevolent, if so desired, but nothing more.
And let us be permitted to advise those who by their position and intelligence can influence others not to go beyond this limit.
(pp. 59-60)
After this article was published on Oct. 16th, 1917, Coelho published another article the next day Oct. 17, again, talking about Fatima.
If miracles are rare today, it does not mean that they can no longer occur. For example, the lives of Don Bosco, the founder of the Salesians, and of the Curé d’ Ars were full of miracles. The history of Lourdes is also a series of miracles verified with the greatest rigor. …
St. Augustine says: “A miracle should never be proclaimed when a natural explanation is possible”.
This rule has always been scrupulously observed by the Church, the teacher of truth.
Now what did we say about the case of Fatima? That we, the obscure author of these lines, had not observed any fact that would prompt us to consider as supernatural. But not only did we treat it from a personal and unauthorized point of view but in no way did we wish to disclaim the observations which others have made and which differ from ours.
We would want nothing more than to witness events to which no natural explanation can be fitted. Our disappointment was great, when on Sunday, as we said, we verified the vacuity of what on the day before had seemed to be miraculous; our disappointment was heightened since we were greatly impressed by the coincidence that the rain of three hours’ duration had stopped almost exactly at the moment when the children prayed, and that the sun then appeared in the clouds.
Simply put, it is necessary in a matter of such weight not to yield to the principle Quod vohumus facile credimus.
We therefore conclude as we did yesterday: it is fitting to replace premature enthusiasm with the most prudent reserve. If in Fatima there is something of the supernatural our holding back will not impede the march of events upon which god in His infinite wisdom has decided.
On the other hand, a fiasco following hasty exaltation would not fail to be exploited by the enemies of the Church; they are always numerous, very active, and constantly on the watch for the propitious moment for the attack.
End of Coelho.
Coelho called the “Miracle of the Sun” vacuous and he got backlash immediately by other papers. I included this report to show there was another side, which many apparitionists don’t include in their stories. Jaki was an exception.
The bottom line, the “miracle” of the sun doesn’t prove a heavenly apparition. To one devout Catholic who witnessed the event didn’t even think it was miraculous and publicly tells us so in two articles in a Catholic magazine within a week of the “miracle”. The same so-called miracle of the sun is seen at all the modern apparition sites, which we know are false. Yet, it was this very “miracle” that has convinced most Catholics that Fatima is a true apparition from Heaven.
Conclusion
The prophecies definitely failed. Is that the fault of Fatima or Lucia? It’s hard to separate the two. However, we know that Garabandal was false precisely because of the false prophecies. Why are the false prophecies of Fatima overlooked?
People would rather believe in a hoax, a deception of the devil, or any lie if it makes them feel better. The pope, many bishops, and many theologians and canonists have bought into Fatima but that doesn’t mean it’s true. It doesn’t mean it’s probably true.
Lastly, the Church has declared that nothing in the Fatima apparition is heretical or dangerous morally or doctrinally. However, is it possible the Fatima apparitions are a demonic deception as a distraction to something else? For instance, what was really behind the Spanish Flu and Vaccines? See page 27 of the COVID-Report-from-Rep.-Weyler-3.pdf
Both Jacinta and Francisco Marto were killed by the Spanish Flu. 100 million people died from this chastisement that’s never mentioned by Our Lady of Fatima. That’s as many or more people than both world wars put together! How could the Spanish Flu be overlooked? How is it still overlooked?
Another possible deception concerns what was then the future of the Church. Is Fatima a demonic plan hidden within the demonic plan? All kinds of ideas floating around Fatima predictions, consecration of Russia, the triumph of the Immaculate Heart, etc. all of which have nothing to do with the real Gospel and confuse the end times as Scripture tells us.
These all are the bad fruits of Fatima.
We know how Pope Leo XIII in the 1880’s tells us how in his vision Christ gives the Devil the time and power to deceive the Church. Was Fatima part of that plan in the grand scheme of things? After all, the whole reason we pray the St. Michael prayer after mass is because of Satan’s plan to destroy the Church. Pius XI shorten the prayer in 1934 and leaves out those critical points Pope Leo XIII put in the prayer. See the Original St. Michael Prayer of Pope Leo XIII. Why was the crackdown on modernists put to an end after Pope Pius X?
I don’t know how you get around the false prophecies, but it looks to me to be another great deception of the devil to fool the masses to distract from something far greater.
Check out Footnote 3 to see more of the Fatima deception.
Footnotes:
Tim, I send many readers of my Substack to your site. Many are Catholics such as myself who believe in the Fatima apparitions. You are shooting yourself in the foot. How can we believe any of your other posts when you are clearly ridiculing most of the Catholic world?
You never mentioned Malachi Martin. He read the Third Secret, saying the Vatican was wary of consecrating Russia due to its nuclear threats. Plausible to me. “Time To Revisit Fr. Malachi Martin’s Clues To The Third Secret of Fatima: Featured Download. What Did He Reveal About A New Secret Weapon? Plus Dr. John Trump’s Connection to Nicola Tesla; and Deborah Tavares on SGT Report about Scalar Weapons Theory”
https://ahiddenhistory.substack.com/p/time-to-revisit-fr-malachi-martins
I see the need to spell it out for you because you are rather dense on this topic.
Historical Context is missing from your Fatima rants. Atomic Bomb Era. You and your readers may need a brushing up on the worldwide visceral fear during the 1960’s, I remember so well. Catholic historian Gary Guiffre’s article in Chiesa Viva, “ Grave Reasons of State: The Atomic Bomb and the Eclipse of the True Vicar of Christ.”
—Gary Guiffre, Chiesa Viva: “Attached below is an article I wrote for the Italian publication Chiesa Viva about nuclear testing that was performed prior to the 1958 Conclave, as well as corroborating evidence supporting the thesis that the true pope was threatened into resigning under duress to avoid a potential calamity of nuclear proportions against the Vatican City State, rendering his resignation dubious.”
https://garygiuffre.substack.com/p/grave-reasons-of-state
Timothy, have you ever read books that are actually favorable toward Fatima? The esteemed Catholic historian William Thomas Walsh penned “Our Lady of Fatima,” “Isabella of Spain: the last crusader,” and ‘Phillip II.”
Veritas, it’s as if you didn’t even read this article by Steven Speray. Fatima is non doctrinal and even though considered “worthy of belief” does not have to be believed. Furthermore, it is can and should be tested for its veracity, which it seriously lacks—for the reasons mentioned in this article and more. Therefore, if one finds this apparition to be dubious as it is portrayed, the critic in good conscience ought to criticize it, even publicly. For we are commanded by Scripture itself to test the spirits coming in Christ’s name, and when those spirits fail our tests, the onus is on us to warn others.
Malachi Martin is not worthy of mention because he was not a credible figure. He was in the employ of the American Jewish Committee, among other things. That alone is enough to dismiss him, as if his fanciful claims weren’t hard enough to swallow. There are some other serious yet plausible accusations against Martin that further question his credibility, though I won’t mention them here.
SGT Report is yet another controlled opposition, FSB/SVR-tasked disinfo operation. Wouldn’t trust anything coming from them.
I am familiar with that Chiesa Viva piece (I think Avro Manhattan also wrote about this). What makes it suspicious is that it assumes that prior to 1958, everything was great in the Catholic Church—an error commonly believed by many sedevacantists. In reality, the subversion was well underway well before 1958; therefore, why the need for the nuclear blackmail of the pope by Jewry?
It’s strange that of all things Catholic of which to try to convince me, you pick an inconsequential private revelation. That alone shows at least one effect of its deception.
Why can’t you leave this alone? Very troubling. What would wish for Catholics? We’re already reeling from the coup against Holy Mother Church. What’s next to check off your list? You sound very, very Protestant.
You’re inverting things. Fatimists are the ones pushing their agenda very hard. Ours is only a warranted reaction.
I’m always concerned about these Catholics that put so much faith in personal revelations. It seems to me that their Faith must be very weak indeed if it needs to be bolstered by revelations. Strangely enough, it seems that so-called traditional Catholics are the most fervent promoters of the Fatima revelations. They seem to be similar to the gnostic American puritans in their almost gleeful anticipation of the coming destruction of the world and the chastisement. They are usually also very puritanical in their criticism of other Catholics.
They seem not to understand that it is a dogma of the Faith that God created a good world and no material thing such as tobacco, alcohol etc. is a source of evil but man’s perverted will to abuse those good things that God provided for us
Hello, Janet.
I agree that those who put so much trust in private revelations probably are lacking in genuine faith. They certainly do seem puritanical. I don’t know enough about the theology surrounding baptism of desire to make a comment. What does it say about your priest’s sermons that they seem Marian centric rather than Christ centric, as they ought to be? It took me awhile to get comfortable among hyper-Marian Catholics with my discernment that they are misguided. When everyone around you is hypermarian and they use mental gymnastics to justify it, it becomes a bit of a gaslighting operation, doesn’t it? Yeah, the apocalyptic obsessions Fatimist have is a dead giveaway, isn’t it?
Tim, there comes a time when you need FAITH. I have faith in Fatima. That’s what believing refers to. At this point in my life, I don’t care what an individual Catholic believes about apparitions. You shouldn’t either in the context of the ongoing crisis. I do care deeply that there is a deep growing division between Trads and Novus Ordo and Sedes. That’s my focus and you ought to take some time and ask yourself what does your soul have to gain by spreading unwelcome theories. Mostly, I wanted to continue to recommend your site but not now.
You need faith in God, not in Fatima. Look at your priorities. Fatimism is divisive because it is contrary to Scripture and Holy Church. Stop blaming those on the watchtower.
Sorry, I messed up. Thank you for the article. Although I never studied the Fatima apparitions in any depth, I’ve always doubted them and was so relieved when I discovered that I didn’t have to believe them. St. John of the Cross wisely stated that we should ignore all personal revelations both good and bad because they are not necessary for salvation, they are perceived with the senses which are fallible and some may be diabolically inspired.
I am a Pre-Vatican II Catholic and was catechised by the Penny Catechism to believe that baptism with water was necessary for salvation. At the time everyone in my working class Irish community believed that.
I went to an SSPX community for the Latin Mass but left when I discovered that Lefebvre in his book ‘Letter for Confused Catholics ‘ states that Protestants, Muslims, Buddhists and even ANIMISTS can be saved by Baptism of Desire explicit and IMPLICIT!
The priest at the community I attended gave numerous sermons on the apparitions at Fatima at Salette but never on Our Lord’s statement to Nicodemus that you need to born again of water and the Holy Spirit and his instructions to the disciples to go to all nations, preach the Gospel and baptise.
Whenever I have tried to defend the DOGMA that water baptism is necessary for salvation, I have received the most vituperative attacks from Lefebvrists who produce the most arcane statements to justify their denial of the dogma.
As I had never studied the Fatima apparitions, my reasons for doubting were primarily that it seems that Our Lady didn’t know that communism was a Jewish ideology and not an error of the Russians. According to Solzhenitsyn, 66 million Russian Christians were killed by the Bolsheviks and he stated that the Bolsheviks were neither Russians or Christians and hated Russians and Christianity.
Another doubt was the statement that most people go to hell for sins of the flesh when spiritual pride is and has always been the first and worst sin.
And finally, the Fatima apparitions introduced Apocalyptic obsessions into the Church which had previously been the preserve of American Protestants
I’m with you, Janet. I, too, am grateful for these articles. I’m an old convert who for the last 10 years has been stumbling around in the wreckage of the Church trying to find the truth after 20 years of unwitting and ignorant sleep in the Novus Ordo.
Jesus said the gates of hell would not prevail against her and that of course is true. The Teachings and Traditions of the Church will always be available to those who look for them. The Mass is not above the Faith and the SSPX is clearly heretical and has no jurisdiction; I believe it is controlled opposition. Countless faithful Catholics have had no access to Mass during the last 2000 years. We soldier on as they did with the Faith in our hearts against which the gates of hell cannot prevail.
There used to be a site that expressed misgivings about Fatima but it seems to have vanished. This site, Fitzinfo.net, has been bringing up the discussion for a while now and I welcome and appreciate it very much.