Sat 1st Nov 2014 | Last updated: Fri 31st Oct 2014 at 16:19pm

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo

Comment & Blogs

Fatima conspiracy theories are damaging the Church

There are enough scandals for Catholics to worry about: no need to waste time on crackpot fantasies

By on Monday, 27 June 2011

Sister Lucia, who died in 2005 at the age of 97, was the oldest of three children who received apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima (CNS photo)

Sister Lucia, who died in 2005 at the age of 97, was the oldest of three children who received apparitions of the Virgin Mary at Fatima (CNS photo)

As William Oddie has pointed out in his blog explaining the reasons for the collapse of the Pro Ecclesia et Pontifice (PEEP) Conference, some very dodgy elements have lately attached themselves to the campaign long and bravely fought by Daphne McLeod to restore proper catechesis in Catholic schools. Masonic plots? Third Secret of Fatima skulduggery? You name it, they believe it. This is very sad, but not surprising. “Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia” is what PEEP is or should be about; when you reject “Petrus” – in this case, Pope Benedict XVI – you end up in a church of your own making.

It should be emphasised that although all the Third Secret Mafiosi seem to be traditionalists, not all traditionalists are members of the Third Secret Mafiosi. The extreme element gives a bad name to all those Catholics who love and are loyal to the Extraordinary Form of the Mass but who are not remotely conspiracy-minded.

Not wanting to sink into the morass of lies, forgeries, secrets and Judaeo-Masonic plots which abound on certain websites, but keen to know the truth about the “Third Secret of Fatima” (and the consecration of Russia which is linked to it) I applied to Timothy Tindal-Robertson, who has himself written an excellent book on the subject: Fatima, Russia and Pope John Paul II, published by Gracewing. I am indebted to him for the following information:

After the consecration of Russia of March 25 1984, Sister Lucia, the sole surviving seer of Fatima, was visited by the Apostolic Nuncio who asked her, “Is Russia now consecrated?” “Yes. Now it is,” she answered. This report is taken from an interview with Sister Lucia published in Fatima Family Messenger (Oct-Dec 1989, p7), written by Fr Robert Fox, the American priest authority on the subject of Fatima.

On November 8 1989, Sister Lucia sent a letter to Pope John Paul II in which she confirmed that his consecration of March 25 1984 “was done as Our Lady requested.” This is quoted in Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words, July 2007, p. 124, note ii.

In the issue of January 9 2002 of the English edition of L’Osservatore Romano, there is a report on page 7 of Archbishop Bertone’s conversation with Sister Lucia on November 17 2001 at her Carmelite convent in Coimbra. The archbishop asked her: “What have you to say about the stubborn assertions of Fr Gruner, who has been collecting signatures asking the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at last, as this has never been done?” Sister Lucia replied: “I have already said that the consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984 and has been accepted in heaven.”

Fr Nicholas Gruner, for those who have not heard of him, has devoted his life to running an organisation that attempts to prove a massive Vatican cover-up concerning Fatima. Mr Tindal-Robertson points out that it is noteworthy that on Fr Gruner’s website, despite a wide range of books mentioned, there is no reference at all to Sister Lucia’s own account of the apparitions: Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words. Why does he ignore this essential text? Because the seer’s book conclusively refutes his allegations.

Curiously, the whole text of the third part of the secret of Fatima, published by the CDF on June 26 2000, with many supporting documents, is also missing from Fr Gruner’s website. Also missing is the knowledge that this document is available in full in Sister Lucia’s own book, cited above, on pp. 199-233. In effect, Fr Gruner rejects the testimony of Sister Lucia, Cardinal Bertone and also the present Pope, who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, published the whole text when he was president of the CDF.

None of this would matter if thousands of people had not been led into error and confusion by Fr Gruner’s activities. More importantly, the teaching authority of the Church concerning the revelations of Fatima is being undermined. The Holy Father himself is accused of dishonesty. This is a very grave matter. Surely there are enough real scandals in the Church in this country which Catholics need to address, and which Daphne McLeod has addressed so valiantly in the past, without falling for these conspiracy theories and crackpot fantasies?

  • Anonymous

    Yes,I couldn’t grasp that either.

  • Petrus

    Not all church statements are binding!

  • Anonymous

    Yes, very quiet . . . . hmmm . . . .

  • Anonymous

    Nishant ! What can I say; you are still not addressing the issues? Due to lack of free time at the moment I cannot reply properly in Catholic Charity to this post at this present moment but I will ASAP.
    God Bless.
    Pray the Rosary!
    Do the Communion of the Five First Saturdays in Reparation for Blasphemies against Our Lady!

  • Anonymous

    It is you who are wrong! Vatican II was not an infallible Council of the Church, it was merely pastoral in nature and did not intend to treat of doctrinal matters. Why do you think people are so confused by what has happened since?
    I could quote many authoritative texts to prove that Vatican II was not infallible, but the following two should suffice.
    The first was a statement by Pope John XXIII at the beginning of the Council:
    “The salient point of this council is not, therefore, a discussion of one article or another of the fundamental doctrine of the Church which has repeatedly been taught by the Fathers and by ancient and modern theologians, and which is presumed to be well known and familiar to all. For this a council was not necessary. [...] The substance of the ancient doctrine of the Deposit of Faith is one thing, and the way in which it is presented is another. And it is the latter that must be taken into great consideration with patience if necessary, everything being measured in the forms and proportions of a magisterium which is predominantly pastoral in character.” (Opening Address, October 11, 1962; Walter M. Abbott, SJ, The Documents of Vatican II, p. 715)
    The other is this from Cardinal Ratzinger when he was Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith:
    “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)
    The Syllabus of Pius IX is infallible Magisterial teaching contradicted by the teaching of Vatican II. That means Vatican II is what everyone in authority has been saying, namely a mere pastoral, non-infallible Council.
    Now you said: ”The Church is more concerned with corporate reunion, especially where the Eastern Churches are concerned, which include nearly 300 million souls, which is why she goes in for Ecumenism. Likewise, many Evangelicals, She judges, are in good faith and so reaches out to them, with her riches. Top leaders have praised Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church, and have even actually spoken of possible reunion themselves.”
    Does that include kissing the Koran and gathering the world’s religions in a syncretist meeting in Assisi, during which the Buddhists placed their idol atop a tabernacle on an altar in St. Francis’ Basilica and proceeded to worship it?
    Is that also infallible Vatican II? Please give me any teaching of the Church before Vatican II that promotes, rather than condemns, the ecumenism you uphold in the name of a pastoral Council.

  • Anonymous

    The Church has said no such thing. All that has happened is that certain prelates have given us their take on events which do not tie in with the facts.

    For example, the vision released in 2000 speaks of a bishop in white (the Pope) being killed atop a hill by a band of soldiers firing bullets and arrows. Now I don’t know if you have grasped this fully, but Pope John Paul II was shot by a lone gunman in 1981, there were no “arrows” and he didn’t die. How, then, can anyone with an ounce of common sense claim that the vision released in 2000 applies to Pope John Paul II. Also, the vision portrays this bishop in white stopping on the way up the hill to pray over many dead bodies. Can you explain that with the 1981 event. Come on people, God gave you intelligence. Work it out! 



  • Anonymous

    Nishant.  In this post I will deal solely with the issue of the modern ecumenical approach after Vatican 2.
    Or Should I say I will let Our Lord and Our Lady do so!
    I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow.
    On December 10th, 1925, Our Lady and the Child Jesus appeared to St Lucia in the Convent at Pontevedra. Our Lord said to St. Lucia “Have compassion on the Heart of your Most Holy Mother, covered with thorns, with which ungrateful men pierce it at every moment, and there is no one to make an Act of Reparation to remove them.”  Our Lady went on to ask for people to make the Five First Saturdays with the intention of making Reparation to the Immaculate Heart. When St, Lucia was at Tuy on May 29th she asked Our Lord (As instructed by her confessor Fr. Goncalves) why Five First Saturdays. Our Lord responded “My daughter, the reason is simple. There are five types of offences and blasphemies committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary:

    1.        Blasphemies against the Immaculate Conception; ……….Guilty as charged; Most Protestants, most of the Eastern Orthodox, Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, secular humanists etc.

    2.       Blasphemies against Her Perpetual Virginity;……….Guilty as charged; Most Protestants, , Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, secular humanists etc. In fact many “Catholics” today do not believe in Her Perpetual Virginity.

    3.       Blasphemies against Her Divine Maternity, in refusing at the same time to recognise Her as the Mother of men;……….Guilty as charged; We know that Moslems, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists reject this teaching, especially because they do not believe that Jesus Christ is God.

    4.       The blasphemies of those who publicly seek to sow in the hearts of children indifference or scorn or even hatred of this Immaculate Mother;…Guilty as charged;  Protestants,  Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Freemasons, Communists, Socialists, secular humanists etc. Sadly also many “Catholics”.

    5.        The offences of those who outrage Her directly in Her Holy Images.”;……….Guilty as charged;  This includes those who would actually destoy Her images, ridicule them, or those like Protestants who accuse Catholics of idolatry for having statues of Our Lady in places of honour

    Our Lord clearly is not taking the modern ecumenical approach here that led to Assisi 1. He is not emphasizing those points that unite us with false religions. He is emphasizing those points that divide us from non-Catholics! He is telling us these points are far more important than any superficial ecumenical unity. Clearly and in the objective order He is accusing all these false man made religions of BLASPHEMY AGAINST HIS MOST HOLY MOTHER! He is emphasizing that these blasphemies against Our Lady’s Immaculate Heart are not to be taken lightly. They are, in fact sins against the Faith!

    This is an indictment against all non-Catholic religions. This is truly a call by God for all Catholics to do Penance and make Reparation (For the full story of these visions please read The True Story of Fatima by John de Marchi, I.M.C.)

    God Bless. 

    Pray the Rosary!

    Do the Communion of the Five First Saturdays in Reparation for Blasphemies against Our Lady!

  • Johnasburton

    To Francis Phillips & William Oddie,
      “Masonic plots? Third Secret of Fatima skulduggery? you name it, they believe it” Your contribution, Francis Phillips, to what should be a serious debate. Oh yes, we also have something about ” the Third Secret Mafiosi”. Your journalist Colleague William Oddie, lacks civility, but his style is quite similar, if less refined. A shortage of hymnal-sheets maybe?  Here’s Williams item, and I quote “Mad, mad, mad. Qed Francis. What a load of crackpots” end of quote. That’s telling them William.

    Francis and William, you should study the great Catholic debaters, the likes of Belloc, Fr. Thurston, Chesterton and Lunn. You may learn to distinguish between the scalpel and the pile-driver. I purchased, for a snippet, a little treasure of a hardback lying in a corner of dusty little bookshop.. It is a book-form controversy between the great convert, Sir Arnold Lunn and W.G.C. Coulson, the Protestant Divine. Lunn dissected the Protestant arguments of Coulson with clinical precision. yet both retained a mutual respect for each other throughout the long debate. 

    The following “gibes-questions” from you,Francis Phillips, need addressing. I have already quoted them above. They are” Masonic Plots? Third secret of Fatima skulduggery? you name it, they believe it “. As for William Oddie, since I relish tagging people as crackpots as I like spooning Castor Oil. I was spoon-fed Castor oil as one of the ” its for your own good” foods by my mother as a young boy in the forties. It wasn’t until later I found out that the Italians poured Castor Oil down prisoners throats forcing them to talk. Was my mother a torturer?
    This little digression is for your sake William, just to show you what I think of your journalism.

    Francis, your citation ” Fatima Skulduggery” I will let to Skulduggerers ( is there such a word) and the other remark, “Third Secret Mafiosa” is best left to aspiring candidates for the spiritual branch of ” la Cosa Nostra”. In answer to your yet unasked question, ” no, I don’t know, if besides burying their victims with a Lily between their teeth, if the Mafiosi have a spiritual dimension to their proffession. Nonetheless, lets leave childish things behind and join the adult world. It might help to recall the old Catholic maxim that this weeks Saul could be next weeks Paul

    Your somewhat mocking question about ” Masonic plots” is serious. It has for a background the now retired ” Ha, another conspiracy Theorist” echo. So let me inform you of the unchanged-unchangeable, Catholic position? Founded 1717, its proper birth was the 1723 constitution by a clergyman called Anderson.. Briefly the following Popes have condemned it, as has the likes of Mgr. Jouin, Mgr. Dillon, Fr. Fahey and many other Catholic theologians. Nevertheless, it is the language by which the Popes condemned it that place your statement in its proper framework.

    Condemnations from over eighteen popes, All the Clements beginning with Clement X11 in “In Eminenti” 1838, Benedict X!V “Providas” 1751. All the Pius’s.  including of course, Pope St. Pius X: Vehementor-1906 and -Letter to France-1907.  Pope Gregory XV1,s Encyclical ” Mirari Vos- 1832. Leo X111′s towering “Humanum Genus”

    Mgr. Gay, assigned by the Council of the Vat. wrote in ” A Memorandum on Secret  Societies” ” Freemasonry is indeed the abyss of all errors, the well of perdition”. “Well of Perdition” refers to the Abysmal Well  of Revelation.  Pope Leo X111-”Let us therefore, expose Freemasonry as the enemy of God, of the Church and of our Motherland”.
    Pope Clement X11 commanded all Catholics to avoid Freemasonry under penalty of
    excommunication. Except in the danger of imminent death, absolution for those assisting Freemasonry in any way whatsoever is reserved to the Pope of the day. Pope Benedict wished to have Masonry extirpated in all states.

    The Freemason Limousin, in the Masonic Review “L’Acacia” delares masonry to be what it is, “a Counter-Church. Pope Clement X111 calls Masonry “Gangrenous”. Pope Pius V1 condemns them as “Sects of perdition”. Pope Pius V11- “They trample the cross of Jesus Christ in the iniation of the degree of Knight Kadosh”

    Popes Leo x11- “Perverts”.. Pius v111- “Their Law is untruth, their God is the devil and their cult is turpitude”
    Popes Gregory XV1- Pius 1V-Leo X111- St.Pius X etc. their condemnations are equally damning.

    Our Lady of Good Success to Mother Mariana at Quito1598 foretold- 1. The near destruction of the Catholic Church in the Twentieth Century. “Satan would rule almost totally through the Masonic sects. 2. The light of Faith would be almost completely extinguished, as would morals. 3. Truly religious souls would be reduced to a small number. 4.Great impurity would reign, there would be little care for spiritual matters. 5.The most important prophecy was of the worldwide crisis in the Church.

    Our Lady of La Salette foretold that 1.”Rome will become the seat of the Anti-Christ”. 2.That many of her priests would “become cesspits of impurity”. Not even his most inveterate enemy could blame Archbishop Lefebvre for this Apostasy, for this is what it is.

    Both of these Apparitions and their prophecies are guaranteed by Holy Mother Church.

    These are CATHOLIC FACTS that speak of conspiracies beyond the wildest imaginings of the most ardent “Conspiracy Theorist”. Unfortunately for the “Anti-Conspiracy Theorists, they come from that most prudent of all organizations, the Catholic Church, and the most prudent of her members, Her Popes, Her scholars, Her Saints, and supremely, Mary, the Mother of the Church. To be consistent, Francis and William, you must now condemn the witnesses I have called, or else do the unthinkable, tender your apologies as befitting.

    I might also remind you that, every human being being is created in the image and likeness of God. He knew each one of us by name “before we were knitted in our mothers womb”. This may in future, put a brake on your wilder journalistic tendencies
                                                                                                                           Yours in J.M.J.
                                                                                                                            John O’Callaghan

  • Anonymous

    This link should be followed by any Catholic who considers himself to be objective. I do not see how anyone reading the facts at this site could continue to argue that the consecration of Russia was effected by Pope John Paul’s 1984 act of entrustment

  • Anonymous

    I quoted just a short time ago the following statement of Cardinal Ratzinger:

    “If it is desirable to offer a diagnosis of the text [Gaudium et Spes] as a whole, we might say that (in conjunction with the texts on religious liberty and world religions) it is a revision of the Syllabus of Pius IX, a kind of countersyllabus. [...] Let us be content to say that the text serves as a countersyllabus and, as such, represents, on the part of the Church, an attempt at an official reconciliation with the new era inaugurated in 1789.” (Principles of Catholic Theology, 1987, pp. 381-2, Ignatius Press 1987)

    1789 ties in perfectly with everything you have quoted, it being the date of the Masonic French Revolution. So Vatican II was aligning the Church with the new era inaugurated by Freemasonry in 1789. And they condemned Fr. Kramer for saying that Masonic influences were at work in Vatican II.

    It just shows what mass hysteria can do to objectivity. Francis Phillips, William Oddie, Stuart Reid Charterhouse and Robert Ian Williams take note!

  • Jmcdc2001

    I agree with those here who have said the story is not well researched. Cardinal Bertone said this, and Father Fox wrote that? Call me a skeptic. I met Father fox a few years ago when I drove him down the street to his house in Hanceville after churrch. He was a  nice man, and he did mention his work at Fatima but I didn’t think to ask him about the consecration. Father Malachi Martin read the third secret and he was adamant that the Popes had never properly performed the consecration and had silenced Sister Lucia. Of course the late Fr Martin is easily dismissed as a “crack pot” by the likes of oddball Oddie because he wrote and promoted his books on Art Bell’s program.

     I go back to what our Lord said: “by their fruits you shall know them.” Ask yourself honestly what the fruits of  Vatican II have been. A: Apostasy, lack of belief in the true presence, lack of belief in anything, materialism, birth control, pederast abuse scandal etc, etc. There are literally hundreds of canonized saints who predicted great turmoil, apostasy, a comet, a huge war, and a great French, Catholic monarch. Does it seem far fetched from our 2011 perspective? Maybe yes and maybe no. Had a look at Greece lately? And that’s just the beginning of the civil unrest in Europe and elsewhere. I look at the fruits, and trust the saints, Fatima was just one of many prophecies of the same thing: apostasy, war, pestilence, chastisement (comet) and rebirth of the Church more glorious than ever. Deo Gratias!

  • Anonymous

    You are so right Jacinta.
    Put back on the Armor of God.
    For that is what all these Catholic Devotions are.
    And it was not by accident they were taken away!
    God Bless.
    Pray the Rosary!
    Do the Communion of the Five First Saturdays in Reparation for Blasphemies against Our Lady!

  • Davidoff3378

    Exactly, Viva Papa Benedict. He has done so much already for the Church and he indeed knows the secret of Fatima. I remember when he made the statement about ‘We delude ourselves if we
    think that the prophetic mission of Fatima has come to an end’.” It struck me when he made that statement that 2017 will be a HUGE year for the Church. I look to this year to be the time of the great chastisement and the coming of the Great Catholic Monarch. Fatima is important for it’s message of prayer and penance as are the apparitions of LaSallette and La Fraudais and others. These times predicted are RIGHT UPON US. “When bishop is fighting bishop and the Church is one with the world, you’ll know the time is upon us.”

    Another thing I notice these days too is the bitter name calling and
    lashing out against the traditionalists by the liberals within
    the Church and their media supporters. These liberals seem to sense their time is rapidly coming to an inglorious end and I see more bitterness and name calling than ever.

  • Anonymous

    Johnasburton – have you seen this great magazine on Our Lady of Good Success’s condemnation of Masonry in our times?  Available to download free from here:- Oh and should the Herald writers think this is all ‘crackpot’ stuff, the Church has fully approved the apparitions of Our Lady of Good Success, and has done since the 16th century.  The Cause of the seer, Mother Mariana de Jesus Torres, is already well underway.  Her body is incorrupt.  And Pope John Paul II declared the convent where the apparitions occurred to be a Marian shrine and it is an official diocesan Marian sanctuary.  All this is in the magazine. 

  • EditorCT

    Yes, Petrus, true to pattern, Cathedralman disappears when he’s boxed in.  Here he is offered a golden opportunity  to demolish me in public, show that Catholic Truth is damaging the Church, as he claims, and yet, he fails to respond.  Interesting.  To put it mildly.

    Now, of course, he’ll re-appear and accuse me/us of jumping to conclusions, “typical” he’ll say, then he’ll waffle away there about the evil Catholic Truth newsletter and website, before drifting off again without -  of course – accepting the invitation to debate.

    And here was I, ready to ask him if he likes tea or coffee with his chocolate biscuits.

    Signed: Saint Patricia

  • mck

    Yes, I too keep rosary beads under my pillow for that same purpose (and the Divine Mercy Chaplet). The daily rosary has wrought wonders in my family.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    I said repeat, it

    I repeat, it is a treason and a heresy to appeal to
    antiquity to refuse the Living Voice of the Church, our Mother. Heaven takes
    many things into consideration we can have no awareness of, like the number of
    those in good faith, the best approach toward them, and the like, and makes it
    known to us through the Church. We cannot second guess this path.

    It simply doesn’t follow that we ought to reject all
    discussion with Protestants altogether. The Church is more than confident of
    showing that she and she alone possesses the interpretation of Sacred Scripture
    in its true sense, and can show the doctrines you mentioned to be true from
    Scripture alone, while also showing “Scripture alone”, logically, to be self-refuting
    error, if necessary.

    Many prolific Protestants have embraced the Catholic faith
    in recent years, and have come to love our Lady, and the Holy Sacrifice of the
    Mass. And Protestants, seeing that Catholics stand with them on almost all social
    issues have almost foregone the virulent anti-Catholic Fundamentalism that was
    almost universal even a century ago in their ranks. These are clearly positive
    developments, which augur well for the long term.

    The following is from the peer-reviewed 1911 Catholic Encyclopedia,
    which shows such language was envisioned even a 100 years ago.

    “The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in
    advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power
    and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her
    adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in
    her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more
    filial affection and a clearer sense of duty.

    Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many
    Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power?
    We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious
    indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of
    Christianity is better than blank worldliness.”


    Well, which is it, the Second Vatican Council itself, or
    Assisi? Why jump from topics?

    Ecumenism in the sense of the SVC refers to discussions
    between other Christians confessions and the Catholic Church, that bridges may
    be built, and that our separated brethren return to full ecclesial communion
    with us, it being restored in unity and in truth.

    “ When the obstacles to perfect ecclesiastical communion
    have been gradually overcome, all Christians will at last, in a common
    celebration of the Eucharist, be gathered into the one and only Church in that
    unity which Christ bestowed on his Church from the beginning. We believe that
    this unity subsists in the Catholic Church as something she can never lose” Ut
    Unum Sint, Pope John Paul II.

    If you want to discuss Assisi, we can. But Ecumenism is

    And no, I disagree. The SVC was an act of the ordinary and
    universal magisterium. It was the 21st Ecumenical Council and is
    necessary and binding on the faithful. When the Church was generous in her
    wisdom, Tertullian being personally harsh, fell into schism, on vain pretexts.
    This is the same thing that has happened. To refuse the definition of the
    Church, her authentic and final interpretation of the Deposit of Faith, in her
    Living Voice, and to exalt one’s own as superior to it, is schism.



  • Anonymous

    Ditch the spacing in your posts Nishant!  You’re wearing out the scroll button on my mouse!!!

  • Petrus

    Unfortunately, this is the tactic of Dr William Oddie.

  • Petrus

    Dr Oddie has gone quiet too…..a hit and run job.  Not nice.

  • Anonymous


    There is nothing arrogant in someone following the example of St. Paul and St. Catherine of Sienna.  The Saints are there to provide us with good example, amongst other things.  There has been no period of peace.  Regardless of who claims Russia has or has not been consecrated, there has been no period of peace.
    Pope Benedict XVI himself has said that not all has been revealed and he should know – he has read the actual letters.

    And would you mind refreshing my memory please regarding the miracles of Fr. Gruner as I, for one, am quite unaware that he is attributed with any.

    I patiently await sight of your evidence, or a retraction of your statement.

  • Anonymous

    Could you just clarify something for me please?  By “Living voice of the Church” do you mean “Make it up as you go along”?

    Thank you.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    No, I mean what Christ Himself told us (Mat 18:17). Who will judge between you and me, so long as we are on earth, as to who is right? The Church.

    Cardinal Henry Manning was the one who made that statement. The appeal to antiquity is made very often, by the Orthodox, the Protestants, and several others in history.

    And SignorJacko, yeah sorry about the spacing! :D Don’t know why it keeps happening, I ddin’t intend it.

    Anyway, I’ve read Ferrera, Woods, Davies, other SSPX apologists, Fatima Crusader and the like.

    All of them misrepresent the Church’s teaching on ecclesiology, religious liberty, ecumenism and the like and then attack that misrepresented position.

  • Anonymous

    When you dismissively say “Davies . . . and other SSPX apologists . . . and the like” do you mean the late Michael Davies RIP?  I was privileged to know Michael and I’m sorry that you show such contempt for his legacy.  Oddly enough, one person called Cardinal Ratzinger didn’t share your views.  When Michael died he had this to say:-  “I
    have been profoundly touched by the news of the death of Michael Davies.
    I had the good fortune to meet him several times and I found him as a man of
    deep faith and ready to embrace suffering. Ever since the Council he put all
    his energy into the service of the Faith and left us important publications
    especially about the Sacred Liturgy.  Even though he suffered from the Church
    in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church. He knew
    that the Lord founded His Church on the rock of St Peter and that the Faith can
    find its fullness and maturity only in union with the successor of St Peter.
    Therefore we can be confident that the Lord opened wide for him the gates of
    heaven. We commend his soul to the Lord’s mercy.”… Joseph Cardinal
    Ratzinger, 9 November
    2004.  I think you ought to apologise for your previous sneering comment . . . or will you now casually denounce the man who was Cardinal Ratzinger as “SSPX . . . and the like”?  As I said before, you seem to place burdens and restrictions on people that the Church doesn’t.  You appear to be very pharisaical.

  • Louise

    Here! Here! Jacinta.
    I guess its time to turn off the blog and say my rosary.
    Padre Pio called it the weapon too and he always said the Holy Mass of all time ie, the Mass which most of our retiring Bishops were ordained in and who have led us into this terrible mess in the church.

    God have mercy on their soul.

  • Anonymous

    Perhaps, then, you will give us just one example of where Traditional Church teaching tolerates, much less promotes, ecumenism, religious liberty and the new ecclesiology. Just one example, that’s all I ask to back up your claim that Ferrara, Woods, et al., are misrepresenting the Church.

  • Anonymous

    Cathedralman, Cathedralman, wherefore art thou Cathedralman???  Saint Patricia awaiteth thee to bestow upon thy countenance the Glesga Kiss . . .

  • Petrus

    I can’t believe that after all the evidence provided showing that this post is anything but “great and timely” someone would come on and post this!  Anyone with a mind or an ounce of Catholic sense is able to see that this article is utter tripe.

  • Jamesjohngrealy

    Dear Mr Oddie I am surprised by your attitude to the comments made by various bloggers onthis site.  This is because up until now I have never replied to a blog until I read this article.  I must say from the start that pre – Vatican 2 etc was before my time.  I have heard mass in Latin and I think it has a place for the church today to those who like it.  However,  my University training was  in Psychology and I am a member of the British Psychological Society and I have a habit of looking  at the variables  and facts on all sides – unlike yourself at this present time.  Fatima interested me because of the Miracle on 13th October 1917 which was predicted before hand and witnessed by thousands. So this is a scientific fact!   I am also aware of the noted comments made by Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia which have been documented by “Paul”  in great detail on one of these blogs.  This is very accurate! Your attitude and that of the article by Francis is a bit like journalists during Watergate saying ” Woodward and Bernstein are fanatics and President Nixon did not have anything to do with the Watergate bugging, why, because he said so, these Washington Post journalist are causing damage to the American people.  Mad Mad There’s the proof Mr President, crackpotts.” I always admired you as a Catholic writer in a very depressing journalistic British press.  Before making anymore embarrising comments, why don’t you research the facts and publish a book yourself.  I challenge you!  Find out if the comments quoted, especially by “Paul” are accurate!
    I wish you all the best from an admirer of your.

  • Jamesjohngrealy

    William,sorry for my Dyslexia in my last reply to you.  Look forward to your book on Fatima!  PLEASE RESEARCH

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    This is appeal to authority. I didn’t derisively dismiss anyone. I merely said they misrepresent what the Church teaches, which I stand by. I also have one of Woods’ books on another subject and I happen to think it is a spectacular book. But I just disagree with their reasoning in this respect.

    Ecumenism is not religious indifference, yet so often all who attack it seem to think it is just that. The Church affirms she has the sacred right and the solemn obligation to evangelise all men. Ecumenism is an attempt to build bridges in truth and love with all Christian confessions, and is never achieved by compromising on the truth.

    A side note, there are “St.Thomas Christians” in my native land, India, as you may know who took an oath to stay away from the Pope forever. Theological complexities, one way or the other, are indistinguishable to them. But they have softened since Pope John Paul II. Like the Doctors teach us, schism is essentially opposed to charity, and so it is love that will heal it.

    On ecclesiology, the Catechsim of St.Pius X itself affirms those in good faith are joined to the soul of the Church. It is only by this that they are saved, since the Church is the means of salvation for all. And this is what the Church teaches even to this day. So long as even one soul is in good faith, he is not cut off from Catholic communion, so that the Catholic Church subsists in him, as in all of us, though he is outside her visible confines .

    The SVC did not say, and the Catechism affirms again, that there is no “right to be wrong” or a “right to err” since a right is a moral, God-given claim. It merely and correctly said that all persons have a right to freely seek the truth, this is a natural right, and this right is the basis for religious liberty. They also have, within reason, the right to act in accordance with the measure of truth they know, and it would be wrong for a man to neglect the duties imposed by his conscience which he believes to be the will of God, like praying five times a day, even though, in actual fact, God has commanded no such thing.

    This was also one of the main points Archbishop Lefebvre had against the SVC, as you no doubt know. Here is what DH said.

    DH said “that all men should
    be at once impelled by nature and also bound by a moral obligation to seek the truth,
    especially religious truth. They are also bound to adhere to the truth, once it is known,
    and to order their whole lives in accord with the demands of truth However, men cannot
    discharge these obligations in a manner in keeping with their own nature unless they enjoy
    immunity from external coercion as well as psychological freedom. Therefore the right to
    religious freedom has its foundation not in the subjective disposition of the person, but
    in his very nature. In consequence, the right to this immunity continues to exist even in
    those who do not live up to their obligation of seeking the truth and adhering to it and
    the exercise of this right is not to be impeded, provided that just public order be

    It should also be noted that almost all times in recent memory Popes have spoken of religious liberty, they were or are concerned with the freedom of Christians, whether in Communist or Muslim lands. And however correct it may be in itself, we can hardly tell Muslims they ought not to persecute Christians because Christianity is true, can we? So like Pius XII was prudent during WWII, so must we be.

    God bless.

  • Anonymous

    You stated, again, that Michael Davies “misrepresents what the Church teaches”.  Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, would hardly have said what he did about Michael after his death, if Michael had misrepresented the Church in anyway.  READ WHAT CDL RATZINGER SAID ABOUT MICHAEL AGAIN.  You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and you don’t hesitate to malign others’ characters when they’re no longer able to defend themselves.  Despicable and unchristian.  I note there is no apology for maligning Michael’s character.  You appear to have no humility, and as I said before, you place burdens and restrictions on people that the Church Herself doesn’t.  I’m not answering your dilettantish ramblings anymore.  No-one can take you seriously.

  • Father Paul L Kramer

    Francis Phillips is a propagandist of the worst sort – journalism on the level of Hitler’s Voelkische Beobachter. The Catholic Herald has descended to such a level of gutter journalism; attacking a learned and distinguished priest, Father Nicholas Gruner with the sort of malice and mendacity that Hitler’s Propaganda Ministry reserved for the Jews. Phillips is long on innuendo and devoid of anything precise. The positions that the Consecration of Russia has not yet been done, and that the Third Secret have been kept hidden are grossly misrepresented  by the Catholic Herald as a bizarre and silly conspiracy theory devoid of credibility and rationality. Not a single newspaper in the world reported  back in 1984 that Russia had been consecrated. The pope simply made a generic consecration of the world i.e. the whole planet — need I point out that there is a considerable difference beween Russia and Planet Earth. Only a moron with a room temperature IQ could honestly believe that the consecration of Russia requested by Our Lady of Fatima has been done, but the Catholic Herald insults the intelligence of its readers by peddling such lies. The disinguished Italian journalist, Antonio Socci, read my book, The Devil’s Final Battle, with the intention of refuting the position of my co-authors and myself that only one part of the secret has been revealed. After reading my book Socci was compelled to accept the thesis of my book that the full Third Secret of Fatima has not been divulged. His book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, argues forcefully and convincingly that the full secret has not been revealed. The prominent American attorney, Catholic writer and Journalist, Christopher A. Ferrara, has argued persuasively and conclusively with copious factual evidence in his book, The Secret Still Hidden, that the entire Third Secret has not been revealed. According to that crude propaganda organ, the Catholic Herald, the position of Father Gruner, Socci and Ferrara are conspiratorial expressions of lunacy not worthy of discussion but simply to be dismissed out of hand. I have also written several articles for the Fatima Crusader which represent the same position as the above mentioned authors. The editors and writers of Catholic Herald deliberately deceive their readers trying to conceal the fact that there exist well researched and ably argued published works that represent a view that is contrary to their own. In so doing they display the same sort of biased one-sidedness which characterized the hacks and propagandists of the Third Reich

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Yeah, sure, strawmen and appeals to emotion galore.

    We, who stand by what the Church has said, have much more right to accuse you of what you accuse us of. When you imply that the Holy Father is flatly wrong, that is not a malignment of him. When the Church and her Councils are directly blamed for crises, that is honky-dory. But when I dare to disagree with high and mighty Davies, God forbid, I have committed blasphemy.

    Here is what the the present Pope said, while interpreting the statement: “Insofar as
    individual events are described, they belong to the past.”

    I don’t remember coercing you to respond to me. You don’t need to if you don’t want to. God knows my human failings and I make no effort to deny them, but there is no pride in disagreeing with someone who disagrees with the Church. Unless you formed a personality cult around these people, I fail to see why you would take offense.

    If you have read their works yourself, then it should be easy to prove me wrong.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    “Francis Phillips is a propagandist of the worst sort – journalism on the level of Hitler’s Voelkische Beobachter….Only a moron with a room temperature IQ could honestly believe that the consecration of Russia”

    Profound. If you really are Fr.Kramer, which I have no reason to doubt, I’m sorry that I had higher expectations.

    She answers those who have voiced a doubt that some part of the
    ‘third secret’ might not have been revealed: “Everything has
    been published, there are no more secrets.” To those
    who are talking and writing about new revelations, she says: “There
    is not a grain of truth in them. If I had had new revelations, I would
    not have spoken of them to anyone, but would have told them directly to
    the Holy Father!”

    Sr Lucia replies: “The Carmelite community has rejected the
    forms for the collection of signatures. I have already said that the
    consecration desired by Our Lady was made in 1984, and has been accepted
    in Heaven”.
    I also notice that you take no effort, despite having copiously researched the topic yourself, as you remind us, not to dismantle the simple premise of this newspaper article, which you should be able to do swiftly and easily, preferring rather to satisfy yourself with attacks on its writers.

  • Anonymous

    But you STILL can’t answer why Cdl Ratzinger posthumously defended Mr Davies against the false charges that he endured during his lifetime from liberal ignoramuses like you.  Pathetic.

  • Father Paul L Kramer

    The voluntary regime change in the Soviet Union cannot be rationally construed as the promised conversion of Russia. Conversion is defined as a change fron one religion to another or the change from a godless life to a life of devout practice of religion. The idea that conversion consists in political changes and the gaining of the right of religious freedom is nothing but irrational silliness. Our Lady of Fatima dictated a prayer to the seers that asks for the conversion of various European nations and Europe as a whole. Thre was and there remains in Europe a certain level of religious freedom — but these nations are in need of conversion according to Our Lady of Fatima. Can we seriously speak of such corrupt cesspools of immorality as England, France, USA and Canada as ‘converted’ ??? Only a lunatic could answer in the affirmative — yet Russia is no more converted than they are. So, enough of this irrational silliness that Russia has been converted. 

  • EditorCT

    You really don’t get it, do you?  Sister Lucia was silenced by the Vatican and could not possibly have said the things you alleged. She was prohibited from speaking about anything to do with Fatima after the 1917 appartitions, so she couldn’t possibly have expressed a view about the consecration as you claim. The only reliable sources are those of priests close to her like her Spiritual Director or the Fatima archivist.

    Another thing. You  go on and on about “Church authority” but NO “Church auithority” has pronounced the consecration done and the secret fully revealed. You presumably refer to the 2000 press conference presided over by Cardinal Angelo Sodano and Cardinal Ratzinger.  Neither Pope John Paul II nor Sister Lucia were present. Odd, don’t you think?  Why wasn’t SHE there, at least?

    Last year, 13 May, 2010, Pope Benedict said that the events predicted at Fatima are in the future, not – as stated at the 2000 press conference “in the past” – so if it’s “Church authority” you’re looking for, look no further. 

    And please do not insult Father Kramer.  I think he’s had quite enough insulting at the hands of the Catholic Herald, so please do not add to the list.   Father Kramer has more knowledge about Fatima and Catholic teaching in general, in his little finger that you will EVER have.  He’s researched the subject of Fatima and studied ALL the available sources – not just skimmed the EWTN website and taken the word of a proven liar (Cardinal Bertone lied on Italian TV – as reported by Antonio Socci). The first thing any student of any subject learns, is to scrutinise sources carefully. 

    Your last paragraph is utter rubbish. Father’s entire post has demolished Francis’s article “swiftly and easily” as you desire but  a mind as prejudiced and, frankly – with respect – ignorant of the subject as your mind clearly is, won’t be able to discern the truth of what he is saying. 

    To be honest, at this stage in the game, I just say that anyone who thinks Russia has been consecrated and that we are now enjoying the promised period of peace, needs serious professional help.  And the same goes for anyone who thinks Pope Benedict was lying when he said that -  contrary to the Vatican press conference in 2000 – the events foretold at Fatima belong to the future, and that anyone who thinks otherwise “is deceived”.  If both of these truths are not apparent to you now, as we watch the auto-demolition (as Pope Paul VI called  it) of the Church and the world unfold before our very eyes, then you really and truly do need help.  By the bucket full.

  • EditorCT

    Superb post Father.  Absolutely superb. 

    May I add that, having read Father Kramer’s books, including his latest book The Mystery of Iniquity, I would believe him if he told me there were little green men invading my back garden.  He’s that thoroughly documented.

    If only a few more people were as dispassionate and honest as Antonio Socci, and set about reading the published works which provide a scholarly study of the Fatima apparitions and aftermath, instead of going along with the anti-Fatima propaganda.  Talk about “useful idiots.”

  • EditorCT

    Well, how wrong can you be?  Who has interfered with the free will of the post-Fatima popes?  They’ve all used their free will – to disobey Our Lady. 

    I’m not looking forward to my own judgment, but I would sure like to be behind them in the queue when that Day comes.

  • Anonymous

    This will show you how utterly devoid of even basic Catholic knowledge Nishant is –  You couldn’t make it up!!!!

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    That’s it? Your great explanation? The Church “silenced” her? And yet I’m the one who needs help (charitable as ever in disagreements, aren’t you folk), supposedly?

    Firstly, “silence” is not an order until death, and can be reversed. Secondly, it is not my claim. It is a documented fact that she repudiated Fr.Gruner’s claims, and the Carmellite community rejected the forms for collection of signatures. That is why those who have trouble believing her need to invent the most fanciful conspiracy theories.

    I’m well aware of what the Holy Father said in 2010, but are you aware of what he said in 2000, that the individual events foretold in the third Secret belong in the past? Are you capable of obeying that?

    Now, coming to what he said recently, of course the foretold triumph has not happened yet, and he expressed the hope that the coming of the centeniarry of the apparitions, 2017, may hasten them. This is what we’ve said along, the promised peace would not occur 5 minutes after the consecration, but several years later. Since the peace too is part of the prophetic message of Fatima, there is no contradiction.

    And your appeal to authority and people who have tomes of information is an attempted intimidation of those who disagreee with this conspiracy theory and is typical of what I said earlier.

  • Anonymous

    Well spoken Fr. Kramer. Gutter reporting is exactly the perception I had when I read Francis Phillips’ article. She does the dirty on Fr. Gruner while another columnist, Stuart Reid Charterhouse, did the same to you a few days earlier. I wrote an article in response to that scandalous piece but the editor refused to publish.

    From what I can gather, none of the FOUR columnists who have been given free reign by the Catholic Herald’s editor, nor indeed the letter writer who sparked all this, Robert Ian Williams, have made any kind of serious study of the Message and Secret of Fatima. They have simply been allowed to descend on their fellow Catholics like a pack of wild animals. 

    So ignorant are they of the facts that William Oddie referred to “a certain Fr. Gruner.” He didn’t even know who Fr. Gruner was. Yet these people have thought nothing of writing on the subject of Fatima as though they were experts, maligning holy Catholic priests and destroying reputations along the way in a sensationalist manner worthy of the worst of the journalistic rags. 

    Both you and Fr. Gruner are in excellent company in this respect, for Our Lord was also maligned and falsely accused. I’m only surprised that none of the aforementioned wrote to you or Fr. Gruner saying “Do not we say well that thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil.” That’s the viciousness I have witnessed on the part of these Herald representatives.

    May God forgive them for their lack of charity, writing so very ignorantly on a subject they have not even objectively studied. And may God forgive them for the damage they have done to Our Lady’s Fatima Message.

  • Nishant Jeyaraj

    Answer what, exactly? The current Holy Father only showed even at that time a profound charity that so many of his critics today seem to lack. It was obviously not an infallible approval of everything Michael Davies said.

    But your repeated recourse to this shows an intellectual laziness, a complete unwillingness to grapple with what was actually said, even by Davies himself, on the SVC.

  • Petrus

    Well said, Father.  Super post. 
    God bless you.


  • Anonymous

    I have asked you this before and received no answer, so here it is again. If everything is done as you say, then where is the conversion of Russia and the time of peace Our Lady promised for the world? Furthermore, how could the Pope have consecrated Russia in 1984 without mentioning it and without the co-operation of the world’s bishops? And please don’t argue that they did participate, for they did not.

  • Petrus

    This is a person who doesn’t have a mind.  So blinded by hatred that they will not even go and read the facts.  Forget “Once upon a time in Ratzinger and Bertone land”.  It’s tripe and everyone knows it.  Even do a search on wikipedia for “Thirs Secret of Fatima” and the facts are there for all to see. 

    I think we are wasting out time on this person.  Pray for them, because nothing else is working.

  • mck

    Sorry but really laughed out loud at that one!!!

  • Anonymous

    When you have to get onto EWTN staff to ask if one can make a spiritual communion while in mortal sin (see my comment above – and the fact that people are laughing at you) PLEASE don’t cast aspersions on my intellect.  I know that Cdl Ratzinger’s words weren’t covered by infallibility – and hey, I didn’t even have to get on to EWTN to work that one out.  You are obviously calling Cdl Ratzinger a liar – it would not be ‘profound charity’ to say this of a man – even a dead man – “Even though he suffered from the Church in many ways in his time, he always truly remained a man of the Church” – if it were not true.