Critique of the Commentary on the alleged Third Secret text

CRITIQUE of the COMMENTARY of the ALLEGED THIRD SECRET
	Content: In 1960: The Third Secret was to be revealed to the world no later than 1960 as Sister Lucy explained, “because the blessed Virgin wishes it so.” The Vatican commentary alleges that Sister Lucy [2000] has changed her mind and now says, "It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date..." Fr. E. Dhanis: The commentary refers to "the Flemish theologian [Fr.] E. Dhanis, an eminent scholar in the field." Who is he? According to one noted Fatima scholar, "The cleverest, the most tenacious, and certainly the most effective offensive against Fatima was led, from 1944 on, by a Belgian Jesuit, Father Edouard Dhanis... With the passage of time, he appears today, on account of his apparent objectivity and prudent moderation, as the most unyielding and terrible adversary of Fatima." (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. I, Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity, p. 389) Computer-generated letter of November 8, 1989: Of all the authentic letters of Sister Lucy that could have been cited, yet another forged letter is brought into the picture, the computer-generated letter of November 8, 1989. There is consistency here: a commentary on a forged document cites another forged document! Our Lady of Fatima vs. the Commentary: Our Lady of Fatima said, “Only I can help you.” Is the Vatican commentary challenging Our Lady of Fatima's words? Fatima witnesses vs. the Commentary: Witnesses attest to the fact that the Fatima apparitions were exterior, physically sensible apparitions. The commentary insists that the Fatima apparitions were merely interior visions to the three children.
	In 1960:
	In 1946, Sister Lucy was asked when the Third Secret would be revealed to the world, and without hesitation she said, "In 1960." In 1955 Cardinal Ottaviani asked her why it was not to be opened before 1960. She told him, "because then it will seem clearer (mais claro)." Sister Lucy had made the Bishop of Fatima-Leiria promise that the Secret would be read to the world at her death, but in no event later than 1960, "because the blessed Virgin wishes it so." And from Canon Barthas: "Moreover, it [the Third Secret] will soon be known, since Sister Lucy affirms that Our Lady wills that it can be published beginning in 1960." In 1960: Many reliable witnesses, including Our Lady of the Roses message at Bayside, allow us to establish the fact with certitude that the Third Secret was to be revealed to the world no later than 1960, by express wish of Our Lady of Fatima: Cardinal Cerejeira: “From the two parts of the Secret already revealed, the third part has not been made known, but it has been written and placed in a sealed envelope and will be opened in 1960, we know enough to enable us to conclude that the salvation of the world, in this extraordinary movement of history, has been placed by God in the Immaculate Heart of Mary.” (Cardinal Cerejeira, September 7, 1946, at the closing of the Marian Congress of Campinas, Brazil) Canon Galamba: “When the bishop refused to open the letter, Lucy made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, pp. 46-47) Fr. Jongen: Fr. Jongen interrogated Sister Lucy on February 3-4, 1946: “You have already made know two parts of the Secret. When will the time arrive for the third part?” “I communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria,” she answered. “But it cannot be made known before 1960.” (Review Mediatrice et Reine, October 1946, pp. 110-112) John Haffert: “At the bishop’s house (in Leiria), I sat at the table on his right, with the four Canons. During that first dinner, Canon Jose Galamba de Oliveira turned to me when the bishop had left the room momentarily and asked: 'Why don’t you ask the bishop to open the Secret?' Endeavoring not to show my ignorance concerning Fatima—which at that time was almost complete—I simply looked at him without expression. He continued: 'The bishop can open the Secret. He doesn’t have to wait until 1960.'” (Dear Bishop! John Haffert, AMI 1981, pp. 3-4) Cardinal Cerejeira: In February 1960 the Patriarch of Lisbon reported the directions which the Bishop of Leiria “has passed on to him” on the subject of the Third Secret: “Bishop da Silva enclosed (the envelope sealed by Lucy) in another envelope on which he indicated that the letter had to be opened in 1960 by himself, Bishop José Correia da Silva, if he was still alive, or if not, by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon.” (Novidades, February 24, 1960, quoted by La Documentation catholique, June 19, 1960, col. 751) Canon Barthas: during his conversations with Sister Lucy on October 17-18, 1946, he had the opportunity to question her on the Third Secret. He writes: “'When will the third element of the Secret be revealed to us?' Already in 1946, to this question Lucy and the Bishop of Leiria answered me uniformly, without hesitation and without comment: 'In 1960.' And when I pushed my audacity so far as to ask why it was necessary to wait until then, the only response I received from either one was: 'Because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so.'” (Barthas, Fatima, merveille du XXe siecle, p. 83. Fatima-editions, 1952) Canon Galamba: “The third part of the Secret, written down by Sister Lucy, was sealed by the hands of His Grace the Bishop of Leiria and will be opened either after the seer’s death or at the latest in 1960 (ou apos a morte da vidente ou o mais tardar em 1960).” (Fatima, altar do mundo, Vol. II, p. 147) The Armstrongs: On May 14, 1953, Lucy received a visit from the Armstrongs, who were able to question her on the third Secret. In their account published in 1955, they confirmed that the third Secret “had to be opened and divulged in 1960.” (A. O. Armstrong, Fatima, pilgrimage to peace, The World’s Work, Kingswood, Surrey, 1955) Cardinal Ottaviani: On May 17, 1955, Cardinal Ottaviani, Pro-Prefect of the Holy Office, came to the Carmel of Saint Teresa at Coimbra. He interrogated Lucy on the third Secret, and in his conference of 1967 recalled: “The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucy, ‘Why this date?’ She answered, ‘Because then it will seem clearer (mais claro).” (La Documentation catholique, March 19, 1967, col. 542) Cardinal Tisserant: On October 13, 1956, Cardinal Tisserant, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation for the Eastern Church, came as a papal legate to bless “Domus Pacis” at Fatima, the international headquarters of the Blue Army. During his homily he declared: “A part of this message must remain hidden until 1960; but a part has been made public in 1942 by the ecclesiastical authorities…” (quoted by G. Renault, Fatima, p. 225, Plon, 1957) Father Schweigl: In November 1956, Father Schweigl titled a chapter of his little work, “Towards the Year 1960…” and he writes, “… The third part of the message must remain secret until 1960.” (Fatima e la conversione della Russia, p. 13, Rome, 1956) Father Joaquin Alonso, official archivist of Fatima: “Other bishops also spoke—and with authority—about the year 1960 as the date indicated for opening the famous letter. Thus, when the then titular Bishop of Tiava, and Auxiliary Bishop of Lisbon asked Lucy when the Secret was to be opened, he always received the same answer: in 1960.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, p. 46) Father Joaquin Alonso: “When Don José, the first Bishop of Leiria and Sister Lucy agreed that the letter was to be opened in 1960, they obviously meant that its contents should be made public for the good of the Church and the world.” (ibid., p. 54) Bishop Venancio: “I think that the letter will not be opened before 1960. Sister Lucy had asked that it should not be opened before her death, or not before 1960. We are now in 1959 and Sister Lucy is in good health.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, p. 46) Father Fuentes: Father Fuentes interviewed Sister Lucy on December 26, 1957 and told him: “Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way but without giving any importance to Her Message… I am still not able to give any other details because it is still a secret. According to the will of the Most Holy Virgin, only the Holy Father and the Bishop of Fatima are permitted to know the Secret, but they have chosen not to know it so that they would not be influenced. This is the third part [third Secret] of the Message of Our Lady which will remain secret until 1960.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, pp. 103-104) F. Stein: “The testimonies which have announced the revelation of the Secret for 1960 are of such weight and so numerous that in our opinion, even if the ecclesiastical authorities of Fatima [in 1959 the experts themselves were still unaware that Rome had taken the Secret from the Bishop of Leiria over two years previously] had not yet resolved to publish the Secret in 1960, they would now see themselves forced to do so by the circumstances.” (Mensagem de Fatima, July-August, 1959) Father Dias Coelho: “If it were only a question of much ado about nothing, this would already be sufficient reason for dealing with the matter, at least with the purpose of quashing these rumors. But in reality testimony on the existence of the third part of the Secret of Fatima (the first and second part having been published already in 1942) is so weighty, coming from persons like Don José, Bishop of Leiria, his successor, Don Venancio, Cardinal Cerejeira, and Cardinal Tisserant, that it leaves no doubt. Also, we can use, as an unquestionable fact, this assertion of Dr. Galamba de Oliveira (in 1953) in Fatima, Altar do Mundo: ‘The third part of the Secret was sealed in the hands of His Grace the Bishop of Leiria, and will be opened either after the seer’s death or at the latest in 1960.’” (L’Homme Nouveau, No. 269, November 22, 1959) Canon Barthas: "We know that there remains an element still reserved, of which it is useless to guess the content. Moreover, it will soon be known, since Lucy affirms that Our Lady wills that it can be published beginning in 1960." (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, p. 500, footnote 33) Father Joaquin Alonso, noting the effects of the hierarchy's disobedience in not disclosing the third Secret in 1960, as indicated by Our Lady of Fatima: “Simple folks waited up until May 13 [1960] when it was believed that the revelation [of the third Secret] would be made. Later, people felt a profound disenchantment and disappointment which did great harm to devotion to Our Lady of Fatima, both inside and outside Portugal.” (La Verdad sobre el Secreto de Fatima, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, Spanish Edition, p. 46) These testimonies and statements reveal clearly and with certitude, that Heaven (not Sister Lucy!) desired and willed that Our Lady’s Third Secret of Fatima was to be revealed to the whole world no later than 1960.
	Fr. E. Dhanis:
	Fr. E. Dhanis opened the Fatima debate in 1944, with two long articles in Flemish, entitled: On the Apparitions and Predictions of Fatima. In the beginning of 1945, he published these two texts, with only slight alterations, in the form of a book: On the Apparitions and Secret of Fatima: A Critical Contribution. Although appearing to be quite objective, the principle thesis came out clearly: the apparitions in 1917 are undoubtedly authentic. But as for what was later added on, all that is open to question. And thus opened an anti-Fatima debate led by a master modernist, adept at circumlocutions, half-truths, and questions left unanswered, but intended to foment doubt and lack of faith in the apparitions. It was not until 1951 that the best specialist of that time, Father da Fonseca, also a Jesuit, took Dhanis to task and refuted point by point the work of his fellow Jesuit (Fr. Da Fonseca, “Fatima and Criticism,” published in the Portuguese review Broteria, May 1951, pp. 505-542). Father Dhanis became the obligatory reference, the official cover for all the enemies of Fatima. Sadly, Father Dhanis was a modernist, and of the most subtle and poisonous variety. Dhanis appears not to have left a stone unturned in casting doubt and suspicion upon the Fatima apparitions. Following are quotes from Dhanis himself: *The Memoirs* of Sister Lucy:** “These are moving accounts, and charm the reader with the privileged ones of the Holy Virgin.” (“On the Apparitions and Predictions of Fatima," Revue Streven, 1944, p. 143) These accounts have made it possible to write “an intimate history of the little seers, full of freshness and piety.” (Nouvelle Revue Theologique, [referred to hereafter as NRT,] 1952, p. 582) One senses, however, that conviction is absent, or rather one quickly realizes that these are poisoned compliments, for Dhanis deliberately denies them any value as historical witnesses: “All things considered, it is not easy to say precisely how much credence can be given to the accounts of Lucy… one may judge it prudent to use her writings only with circumspection.” (NRT, p. 589) Prayer taught by the angel: “One will note that our judgment on this formula was not severe. We called it neither heretical nor false, but inexact.” (NRT, p. 590) In fact, the objection against this prayer is so inconsistent that we find quite similar expressions in many of the writings of the saints, Gertrude the Great for example. The prayer is perfectly justified even in its literal sense. But Dhanis' negative judgment goes even further: “This however is enough to make it difficult to grant it the heavenly origin that Lucy attributes to it…” (NRT, p. 590-591) Vision of hell: “The other difficulties concern principally the exaggeratedly medieval representation of the pains of hell, and the critic asks how Our Lady could present it this way to the twentieth century.” (“Fatima and Criticism,” pp. 528-529) Father da Fonseca, S.J., replies to his misled and modernist Jesuit brother by quoting references from the Gospels and the Apocalypse, to show that the vision of Fatima is perfectly in accord with Catholic tradition. Consecration of Russia: “But in the concrete, things appear more difficult. Schismatic as a religious unity, and Marxist as a political unity, Russia could not be consecrated by the Pope, without this act taking on the air of a challenge, both in regard to the separated hierarchy, as well as the Union of Soviet Republics. This would make the consecration practically unrealizable.” Since such an impolitic and anti-ecumenical request was “morally impossible by reason of the reactions it would normally provoke,” how could it come from Heaven, Dhanis asks, and his question, in spite of its attenuated form, leaves no doubt as to his answer: “But could the Most Holy Virgin have requested a consecration which, taken according to the rigor of the terms, would be practically unrealizable?… This question indeed seems to call for a negative response.” (NRT, 1952, p. 595) Dhanis’ conclusion, Sister Lucy dreamed it up: “All things considered, it is not easy to state precisely what degree of credence is to be given to the accounts of Sister Lucy. Without questioning her sincerity, or the sound judgment she shows in daily life, one may judge it prudent to use her writings only with reservations.” “Let us observe also that a good person can be sincere and prove to have good judgment in everyday life, but have a propensity for unconscious fabrication in a certain area, or in any case, a tendency to relate old memories of twenty years ago with embellishments and considerable modifications.” (NRT, p. 589) The Secret of Fatima contested: “Nevertheless we will not suppose that Lucy invented in this way the whole text of the secret, in her written version.” “We are led to believe then, that in the course of years, certain exterior events and certain spiritual experiences of Lucy enriched the original content of the secret, but we shall maintain also that the later version of the secret is still really an echo of the mysterious words confided to the little shepherds of Fatima.” (Revue Streven, p. 201) The vision of hell: “… Will we not have to conclude also that the vision of hell related by Sister Lucy cannot have a supernatural origin?” “The vision of hell corresponds to the idea that the children had.” “The seers received a very intense knowledge of the horror of sin and damnation, and little by little this knowledge evoked a vision in their imagination.” (NRT, p. 592; Revue Streven, p. 197) The Immaculate Heart of Mary: “On the one hand, the moral and practical qualities that the witnesses of the life of Lucy attribute to her are a favorable sign, but not decisive. For on the other hand, we become rather suspicious when we see the striking resemblance between the ‘great promise’ that Lucy has transmitted and the ‘great promise’ made by St. Margaret Mary: the knowledge of the old promise could thus become the psychological origin of the new one.” “Our readers will undoubtedly be disappointed to see that, in the secret of Fatima, the theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not presented in such a way that all doubts on its celestial origin disappear.” (Revue Streven, p. 209) “The night illumined by an unknown light”: “It could be passed over if there were no other indications of the influence of certain recent events on the writing down of the secret,” but according to Dhanis, there are others. “Would it then be bold to ask if perhaps the natural impressions of Lucy before the aurora borealis were not integrated into the secret, if they did not introduce the words on the unknown light, as the herald of a great chastisement?” Dhanis concludes, “The announcement of the aurora borealis in the secret is grounds for suspicion.” (NRT, p. 597) Russia and the prediction of war in the secret: “This hardly objective fashion in which the provocation of the war is described in the secret is best explained by the influence the Spanish Civil War had on Lucy’s way of thinking.” (Revue Streven, p. 203) Dhanis calls all of the Fatima message into question: “The new history of Fatima, which rests on the accounts of Lucy, calls for more reserve. One may fear, without denying the sound judgment or sincerity of the seer, that certain fictitious elements slipped into the accounts. The apparitions of the Angel and the miraculous communion he is supposed to have given the children remain uncertain. The secret, recently published, presents a rather complex situation. Its existence is known since 1917, and what the children very vaguely hinted about its content corresponds to the text now published. Yet several points present real difficulties. The description of hell may correspond to a symbolic vision given to the children. The messages of Our Lady, however, bear the traces of different additions. Thus, it hardly seems probable that Our Lady asked for the consecration of Russia or that She attributed the provocation of the present war exclusively to the atheistic propaganda of this country. The announcement of the aurora borealis provokes a certain suspicion; and the new theme of the Immaculate Heart of Mary is not presented in very reassuring circumstances, etc.” (Revue Streven, p. 213) The secret contested: “We admit that the text of the message retains a kernel which corresponds to the words heard in 1917; but a ‘shell’ of later elements which formed around it appears considerable to us. It is probable that from the beginning great punishments were announced, and thus quite obviously it deals with a means of salvation against these evils. But an attempt at reconstructing the primitive text would give too uncertain a result. The written version of Lucy remains precious for us because, however scrambled it is, it still conserves the echo of the blessed words of Mary.” (Revue Streven, p. 213) Testimony of Jacinta: “As we can see, the child is confused and she invents things.” Concerning one of her prophecies, Dhanis writes, “One might also ask if the imagination of the sick little child was not perhaps the only cause of this supposed revelation.” (Revue Streven, p. 138; p. 194) Sister Lucy herself was made aware of Dhanis' attacks on Our Lady's apparitions by Father Jongen, a Dutch Montfort Father who visited Sister Lucy on February 3, 1946. In this interview Father Jongen obtained much information and later responded to the accusations of Fr. Dhanis in three separate articles. Fr. Jongen writes: "We presented to her our excuses for having asked so many questions, while telling her that a Belgian Jesuit priest [Fr. Dhanis] had just published a book putting in doubt some of her affirmations concerning Fatima. She replied immediately: 'And then?' Suddenly, Lucy had an idea: 'That Jesuit priest could write my confessors and ask them what I communicated to them around 1927. They were Fathers José da Silva Aparicio and José Bernardo Goncalves.'" (Fr. Jongen, "En visite chez Lucia," Médiatrice et Reine, pp. 32-35, July 1946) The Vatican commentary cites the greatest adversary of the Fatima message and praises him as an "eminent scholar," while no reference is made to the greatest of Fatima historians, Fr. Joaquin Alonso, the official archivist of Fatima and champion of Our Lady's apparitions. Why?
	*Computer-generated letter of Nov. 8, 1989:*
	The Vatican commentary cites the computer-generated letter of November 8, 1989 (allegedly attributed to Sister Lucy) as "proof" that the collegial consecration of Russia has been done, in spite of the fact that this letter contradicts what Sister Lucy has said for years concerning the exact requests of Our Lady of Fatima, namely, that the collegial consecration is to be of Russia, and not of the world. In a written report on October 22, 1990, a highly regarded forensic expert from Canada indicated that Sister Lucy’s signature was forged on the November 8, 1989 computer-generated letter. In addition, Sister Lucy's blood-sister Caroline reportedly told a priest at Fatima that Sister Lucy does not know how to type. Read more... Many in the hierarchy have confirmed that the consecration has not been done according to the specifications of Our Lady of Fatima. Cardinals Ratzinger, Stickler, Oddi, O'Connor, Law, Lubachivsky, Caprio, Ciappi, Guerri, Arinze, Meyer, and Archbishop Milingo all confirm that the consecration of March 25, 1984 did not fulfill Our Lady of Fatima’s requests. An authentic, handwritten letter of Sister Lucy on the consecration of Russia Sister Lucy in May of 1989 told Cardinal Law of Boston: “The Holy Father speculates that it has been done, done in the best possible way under the circumstances. Done on the narrow road of the collegial consecration that She [Our Lady of Fatima] has demanded and has been wanting? No, that has not been done.” Furthermore, Our Lady of the Roses messages in 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1991, and 1992 all state the same thing, that the consecration of Russia has yet to be accomplished: “I repeat again. My child Veronica, you repeat now in your weakened state, again: the Pope, John Paul II, and all the bishops of the world must allot one day on which they will pray for the conversion of Russia. Not one day for the world, but one day for Russia; or else, I tell you now, Russia will go about and annihilate, destroy many countries. Nations shall disappear from the face of the earth in the twinkling of an eye. That is how desperate the situation is now throughout your world, My children.” (Our Lady, October 2, 1987) (Read more...)
	*Our Lady of Fatima vs. the Commentary:*
	In the Commentary's reliance on two forged documents, and its non-critical acceptance of contradictory testimony regarding the consecration of Russia, it further fails to address the following points: (1) What is the Church's solution to the moral dilemma of the continuing worldwide expansion of communism? (We cite links below to educate the gullible and the ignorant, those who naively believe that communism is dead or Russia is now our dear friend). (2) Has not Our Lady of Fatima said, "only I can help you"? Is the Commentary challenging this statement of Our Lady of Fatima, or has it formally proclaimed that Our Lady of Fatima was wrong to have said this? Bishop Rudolph Graber of Regensburg, Germany has stated, "A theologian of repute has furthermore pointed out that a careful distinction should be made between personal revelations directed solely toward the recipients of the message and those where the message is declared to be for mankind at large. The former can with equanimity be ignored, but the latter must be taken seriously, and Fatima belongs to this category." This statement of Bishop Graber accepts Our Lady's words "only I can help you" literally. (3) Are there not moral dilemmas that admit of only one morally good and perfect response, where if a certain course of action is not taken, it is a sin of omission? Is not the global expansion of communism such a moral dilemma, that admits of one solution, that of the collegial consecration of Russia? ("Only I can help you" - Our Lady of Fatima) (4) It is not a sin against the virtue of prudence to neglect to seek counsel before arriving at a judgment when faced with a moral dilemma that is unclear in its solution? (5) Would it not be a sin of negligence to fail to accept perfect counsel, that of Our Lady of Fatima, the Immaculate, when Her apparitions have been formally approved as being of divine origin and authentic by the Church? Is the Vatican Commentary implying that the hierarchy has found a better way than that offered by Our Lady of Fatima? (6) Would it not also be a sin of ingratitude to fail to acknowledge the immense gift that the Fatima message represents? (7) Would it not be a grave sin of omission to fail to accomplish Our Lady's requests regarding the consecration of Russia, when faced with the foreseeable and predicted "annihilation of nations" if these requests are not heeded? Would not those in the hierarchy responsible for obstructing the collegial consecration of Russia be guilty of the ensuing death and suffering of millions that would result? (8) It is not dishonest to neglect to mention Our Lord's words to Sister Lucy in 1931 on the punishment awaiting the disobedient hierarchy? "Make it known to My ministers that given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My request, that they will follow him into misfortune. It will never be too late to have recourse to Jesus and Mary." This is an explicit reference to the kings of France, who delayed the directions given by Our Lord through St. Margaret Mary. On June 17, 1689, the Feast of the Sacred Heart (which was already celebrated at the Visitation Monastery of Paray-le-Monial), St. Margaret Mary spoke to Mother de Saumaise to have the message from Our Lord passed on to King Louis XIV. These directions from Our Lord were not heeded. One hundred years later to the day, June 17, 1789, the Third Estate rose up and proclaimed itself a National Assembly. On January 21, 1793 the imprisoned King of France, King Louis XVI, was guillotined by the agents of the French Revolution, a disaster that could have been avoided by obedience to the counsel from Heaven. "My Mother came to you at Fatima warning that unless man stopped his path to perdition, Russia would spread her errors throughout your world causing misery, sufferings, and death and enslavement. My children, you did not listen and act upon Her counsel then, just as many now do not listen and act upon Her counsel. It is a part of human nature to exercise too free a will to reject. And this, I say, falls also onto My pastors who are scattering My sheep in My House." - Jesus, May 27, 1978 Surprise Nuclear Attack, Part 1, J.R. Nyquist (WorldNetDaily) Surprise Nuclear Attack, Part 2, J.R. Nyquist (WorldNetDaily) Russia's Economic Moves and What They Portend, J.R. Nyquist (WorldNetDaily) A Genuine Threat of War? J.R. Nyquist (WorldNetDaily) Russian Threats: Then and Now - Introduction (WorldNetDaily) Can Moscow Be Trusted? Russia's Hidden Nuclear Missiles - Part I (WorldNetDaily) Can Moscow Be Trusted? Inside Russia's Magic Mountain - Part II (WorldNetDaily) High Anxiety, J.R. Nyquist (WorldNetDaily) Ex-spy Fears Sneak Russian Attack. Newsmax.com, January 25, 2000 China Reveals Nuclear War Plans Against U.S. (UPI, March 20, 2000) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 1 (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 2: Clinton's Sell-Out of America: (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 3: Russia and China -- Our Friends? (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 4: Russia May Launch a Surprise Attack Against US (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 5: Russia’s Recent Military Build-up (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 6: Eleven Signs of a Russian Surprise Attack (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 7: United States is Unprepared for War (Christopher Ruddy) Russia and China Prepare for War -- Part 8: Why are Most Americans Oblivious to These Terrifying Facts? (Christopher Ruddy) Putin Warns Russia will Strike First (Newsmax, January 17, 2000) Catholic Persecution in China
	*Fatima witnesses vs. the Commentary:*
	Witnesses to the events surrounding the Fatima apparitions (other than the three children), attest to the fact that the apparitions were exterior, physically sensible apparitions, and not merely interior visions perceived by the three children alone. These claims are based on physically perceived evidence. Yet the Commentary claims that "It is clear that in the visions of Lourdes, Fatima and other places it is not a question of normal exterior perception of the senses: the images and forms which are seen are not located spatially...." There is no evidence to support this statement but, on the contrary, there is great evidence to support the fact that the Fatima apparitions were exterior, physically sensible apparitions, that the Queen of Heaven, the blessed Virgin Mary, was really and truly physically present to the three shepherd children: Manuel Goncalves, a young peasant, thirty years old from the hamlet of Montelo, was present on the date of the June 13th apparition. An intelligent man with great common sense, he would be interrogated at length on October 11, 1917, by Canon Formigao: “When Lucy speaks to Our Lady, she speaks loudly. I myself heard her in June because I was near her. Some people say that they heard the sound of the reply.” (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. I, pp. 159-160) Maria Carreira and other witnesses relate that between the words of Lucy, they heard something like the murmur of a very fine, but unintelligible voice. (Canon Barthas, Fatima 1917-1968, p. 146) Another witness, June 13th: “During the vision, the branches of the tree [holm oak tree] were bent down all around it, as though the weight of Our Lady were really resting on it.” (Canon Barthas, Fatima 1917-1968, p. 146) Another witness, June 13th: “I noticed an astonishing fact. We were in the month of June and the tree had all its boughs covered with little sprouts. Now at the end of the apparition, when Lucy announced that Our Lady was leaving in the direction of the east, all the branches of the tree picked up and leaned in the same direction, as if Our Lady, as She left, had let Her dress rest upon the boughs.” (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. I, p. 161) Another witness, June 13th: “We then turned towards the miraculous tree and what was our admiration to see that the shoots at the top, which had been standing upright before, were now bent towards the east, as if someone had stood upon them.” (De Marchi, Fatima from the Beginning, p. 68) After the June 13th apparition: “Then we began to pull off twigs and leaves from the top of the tree, but Lucy told us to take them from the bottom where Our Lady had not touched them…” (De Marchi, Fatima from the Beginning, p. 68) July 13, 1917 apparition: Like Maria Carreira and some other witnesses, Mr. Ti Marto, who was very near the seers, perceived an unintelligible murmur: “then I began to hear a sound, a little buzzing rather like a mosquito in an empty bottle. I couldn’t hear any words!” (De Marchi, Fatima from the Beginning, p. 76) We find it very interesting that the Vatican Commentary and a certain book by the modernist Jean Guitton, entitled La Vierge Marie, have suspicious similarities concerning their treatment of exterior, physically sensible apparitions. Guitton describes his controversial book and the negative reactions that it encountered in Rome: “I had tried to write an ecumenical book about the Virgin, addressed first and foremost to the dissenters, those of the rationalists, and those also, so numerous since the (Protestant) Reformation, who see the cult of Mary as a remnant of superstition. The book was dedicated 'to our Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox brothers, so that the Virgin of Cana hasten the hour of reunion'… It had not been well received in certain Roman circles…. L’Osservatore Romano had condemned this fragile ‘theology of a layman.’” (Jean Guitton, Dialogues avec Paul VI, p. 20) According to Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, Guitton “shows himself to be skillfully minimalistic and subtly involved on the slippery slope of modernism. To show that, it suffices to read the passage devoted to the Annunciation [from the book, *La Vierge Marie, pp. 38-39]: ‘How, in fact, did things take place in the Virgin’s soul?… Was it perhaps a completely interior* ecstasy, and these words were pronounced without any vision accompanying them? Do we perhaps have here, condensed in a symbolic instant, what was, like for Joan of Arc, a long secret history?’” (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity, p. 377, footnote 13) With ravings such as this, it is no wonder that Pope Pius XII was displeased with this book, and had made this known to his friend, Msgr. Grente. Msgr. Parente had wanted to put this book by Guitton on the Index. Yet some of the same themes and phraseology re-surface in the Vatican commentary and its treatment of the Fatima apparitions. Why? "I wish at this time, My children, to repeat again the need to write, to speak, to meet with the Holy Father in Rome, and plead with him to have Lucy come forward and tell the Third Secret word for word, as I give to you each evening on My appearances upon the grounds of Bayside, and Flushing Meadows..." - Our Lady, June 18, 1986) The Third Secret "How I warned and warned that Satan would enter into the highest realms of the hierarchy in Rome. The Third Secret, My child, is that Satan would enter into My Son's Church." - Our Lady, May 13, 1978 Please offer your Masses, daily Rosaries, holy hours, St. Michael exorcism prayer, and sacrifices for the protection of our Holy Father! Remember also your local bishop and parish priests. World-renowned forensic handwriting experts, of JonBenet Ramsey case, say alleged Third Secret is not Sister Lucy's writing. *Read more . . .* WorldNetDaily, world's #1 Internet newsite states, "the newly released [Third] secret could be false..." *Read more...*
THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 1 - 666 in Rome THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 2 - Satan entered the Church in 1972 THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 3 - Satan entered the highest realms of the hierarchy THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 4 - There shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, as satan has set himself in their midst. THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 5 - The Apocalypse / Revelations St. Theresa's revelation at Bayside: Jacinta of Fatima Told Mother Godinho Third Secret, but *. . .* Home Introduction Prophecies Directives Testimonies Veronica News Order Form Photos Bible Magazine Newsletters Revised: July 20, 2022 www.bayside.org