Recently, there has been controversy on the Internet regarding Our Lady of Fatima. There have been people claiming the apparition never happened, or it was of diabolic origin. I have often said (and I continue to maintain) that Traditionalists should not get bogged down with studying private revelations, but should concentrate on solid theology and reading the works of the approved theologians.
When people start to cast doubt (or worse, aspersions) upon approved private revelations, it only serves to sow doubt in the Church during the Great Apostasy, with no pope to answer inquiries and settle disputes. I agree that there should be no quibbling about what was "really" said by an approved apparition. I also agree that private revelations need not be believed as long as there is no disdain of ecclesiastical authority (more will be said on this point below).
However, there are those who attack Fatima as "of the devil" which is blasphemous and impossible, since the Holy Ghost would protect the Holy Father from approving as "worthy of belief" anything that comes from Hell. Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself. To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit.
My further research into Fatima, which I did in preparing this post, has made me see a nuance; I don't think it is possible to outright reject an approved private revelation without committing a sin of disdain against ecclesiastical authority. Hence, were one to reject Fatima (not as being diabolic, but just withholding belief) I personally don't think that can be done without concurrently holding the Church in contempt. (I have authorities to back up my assertion, but I submit all to the judgement of Holy Mother Church, should a true pope ever reign once more. I am not "making up sins" but as I shall hope to demonstrate, I honestly don't see how contempt for the Church cannot accompany discarding approved private revelations. It would never be heresy, but one cannot hold the Church in contempt without sin of some kind---Introibo).
In this post I will explain why I believe in Fatima, and for good reasons that should make all Traditionalists accept it as "worthy of belief."
The greatest reason to accept the apparitions of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima is the approval of His Holiness Pope Pius XII.
On June 13, 1940, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Saeculo Exeunte Octavo, issued on the occasion of the eighth centenary of the independence of Portugal. After exhorting Portugal to expand its missionary work, the Pontiff mentions Fatima directly in paragraph #17:
This holy and most urgent intention should have the principal place in the prayers of each priest. Those who have been called to the sacred orders of the contemplative life are to pray for this special intention, and the faithful, when reciting the rosary so highly commended by the Blessed Virgin at Fatima, should entreat this same Virgin to intercede in favor of this divine vocation in order that the missions will flourish. (Emphasis mine).
Paragraph #52 states:
Without doubt God will shower upon the noble nation of Portugal the liberality of His blessings as he did at its birth. And the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Rosary, who is venerated at Fatima and is the same great Mother of God who obtained a great victory at Lepanto, will be with you with her powerful protection. (Emphasis mine).
On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Emphasis mine).
Let's be clear: what is expounded in encyclical letters demands assent, and in an encyclical, Pope Pius XII states as a matter of fact that the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima and "highly commended" the daily recitation of the rosary. Furthermore, it is the same Blessed Mother at Fatima who obtained the victory at the Battle of Lepanto. It is evident that Pope Pius believed in Fatima and uses the message of Fatima in a Magisterial document. Would the Holy Ghost permit a true pope to teach using a false/non-existent apparition? I answer in the negative.
Radio Address of October 31, 1942
Pius XII broadcasted a radio address (Benedicite Deum) to pilgrims gathered at the Shrine of Fatima to mark the silver jubilee of the apparitions. In this broadcast, he specifically mentioned the events of Fatima and concluded by consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (See Papal Documents on Mary, compiled and arranged by W.J. Doheny, C.S.C. and J.P. Kelly, S.T.D., [1954], pgs. 202-204).
In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:
The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio, They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assume that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.
In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."
(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26).
Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church.
Again, would the Holy Ghost allow an authentic exercise of Magisterial authority to include an apparition which was non-existent? I answer in the negative.
Raising the church in the Cova da Iria at Fatima to the rank of a minor basilica in 1954
The Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary is located in the Cova da Iria area of Fátima, Portugal—the exact site where three shepherd children first reported visions of the Virgin Mary in 1917. Pope Pius XII officially elevated the sanctuary to a Minor Basilica on November 11, 1954.
In the papal letter, the Pope refers to the shrine of Fatima as the place "where the Mother of God appeared in recent times as Our Lady of the Rosary," and adds that in the church are entombed the bodies of Francis and Jacinta Marto "who were privileged to behold the marvelous vision of the Mother of God." He also confesses his "special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima."
(See thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=tmon19630405-01.2.128&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN).
Additional Magisterial authority affirms Fatima
- On May 13, 1930--after 13 years of investigating---Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) gave official approval to the apparitions:
In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby:
Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.
- On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pope Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. No doubt, the Vatican knew of the pending approval from the diocesan bishop.
Would the Holy Ghost permit the Church to give indulgences to a false/non-existent apparition? Once more, I answer in the negative.
Second Reason: The Miracle of the Sun
On October 13, 1917, approximately 70,000 people gathered in Fatima despite heavy rain, waiting to see if Mary’s promise would come true. Suddenly, the clouds broke, and the sun began to spin, change colors, and zigzag across the sky—something that seemingly defied all natural laws. Many thought it was the end of the world, while others fell to their knees in awe.
However, skeptics claim that the Miracle was the result of a mass hallucination, rare atmospheric events, and the like. I could spend several posts just on these claims, yet I will make a terse explanation of why said claims fail:
- The timing of the event. The children (Lucia, Jacinta, and Francesco) told of the event beforehand. When skeptics claim rare meteorological events took place, in 1917 without modern technology, it is more than mere coincidence that the "rare events" happened on the same day predicted.
- The event could have been supernaturally caused. The event could have been superimposed on the minds of the attendees with physical consequences to accompany it (e.g. wet clothes drying).
- The event was widely reported in mainstream, secular newspapers at the time. Notably, O Seculo, a prominent anti-clerical, pro-Mason, and secular newspaper in Lisbon, featured the headline "Como o sol bailou em Fátima ao meio-dia" ("How the sun danced at Fátima at noon") written by its founding director, Avelino de Almeida.
- Even the most God-hating atheists cannot simply dismiss it. The "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins, mentions Fatima's Miracle of the Sun in his God-hating book The God Delusion:
Yet, it was most likely supernaturally imposed. How else can you explain:
- Pope Pius XII saw the Miracle of Fatima four separate times.
(See, e.g., https://aleteia.org/2019/05/13/pope-pius-xii-witnessed-the-fatima-miracle-of-the-sun-while-walking-in-the-vatican-gardens).
Pope Pius never said he was "looking back in time," but rather that he saw the same phenomena, giving credence to the Miracle of the Sun as supernaturally imposed on the minds of the people chosen by God. It could have been accompanied by physical wonders as well in 1917. This explains why (a few) of the 70,000 allegedly saw nothing, God chose not to reveal the wonder to some for reasons known but to God Himself. Many atheists and skeptics were converted by the Miracle of the Sun.
Third Reason: The Holiness of the Seers
The three children had true sanctity at a young age demonstrated by the following:
Spirit of Reparation: After receiving a terrifying vision of hell, the children felt intense compassion for sinners. They dedicated their daily lives—offering up their lunches, enduring physical thirst, and wearing rough ropes—as acts of penance for the salvation of souls.
Devotion to the Rosary: They faithfully obeyed Our Lady’s request to pray the Rosary daily for world peace and the conversion of sinners.
Joy in Suffering: Despite enduring severe persecution, threats of death from local authorities, and the physical ravages of the 1918 influenza pandemic, the children maintained an unwavering, joyful trust in God.
Unlike the so-called "seers" of Garabandal and Medjugorje, the children of Fatima led holy lives. Francesco and Jacinta died as children and endured much, offering it up for the conversion of sinners. Lucia became a very holy nun. The three seers never made money off of Fatima, nor did they lead worldly lives like those of the false non-Church approved apparitions. Unfortunately, they cannot be called saints as Francesco and Jacinta were "canonized" by non-pope Bergoglio. Lucia likewise cannot be called "Venerable," as it was declared by the Vatican II sect, not the Roman Catholic Church.
Fourth Reason: The Catholicity of the Message of Fatima
Fatima has several basic messages which are theologically sound, and laudable:
1. Pray the Rosary Daily
Mary asked the children to pray the Rosary every day for peace in the world and the conversion of sinners. This is why the Rosary is often associated with Fatima.
2. Offer Sacrifices for Sinners
She encouraged the children to offer small sacrifices for the conversion of souls, uniting their suffering with Christ’s.
3. The Vision of Hell
In July, Mary showed them a terrifying vision of hell, reminding them of the urgency of repentance and the need to pray for those far from God. Hell is real, and we need to save our souls, avoiding eternal torment away from God.
4. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary
Mary revealed that Russia would spread great evils unless it was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart—a request that later played a major role in Church history.
(Taken from: focus.org/posts/what-happened-at-fatima-our-lady-of-fatima-explained; it sums up the message of Fatima well, yet I do not endorse the site--it is Vatican II sect).
I would like to add to the Message of Fatima, the importance of wearing the Scapular, and making the Church-approved and spiritually fruitful devotion of the Five First Saturdays in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Fifth Reason: The Church Encourages the Messages of Approved Private Revelations
Is there any obligation on the part of the faithful to give credence to approved revelations? According to several approved theologians, the answer is a resounding YES:
Theologian Slater: It is not heresy, though sinful, to reject what is known to have been revealed by God in a private revelation. (Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], pg. 111; Emphasis mine). This would seem to apply only to the seer.
Theologian Tanquerey: Many theologians are of the opinion that the persons themselves to whom such revelations are made and those for whom they are destined may believe in them with real Faith, provided they have had clear proof of their authenticity. (See The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, [1930], pg. 701; Emphasis mine). Fatima is an approved private revelation, whose message was intended for Catholics throughout the world.
Theologian Connell: A private revelation must be believed by those individuals for whom it is intended. However, no one is obliged to believe the statement of another that a private revelation has been made for him unless good assurance has been given that it is really from God. [Church approval is good assurance] Usually such assurance is given through evident miracles. [The Miracle of the Sun] Persons for whom the revelation is not intended are not bound to accept it as a divine message, although they would do wrong if they positively denied it or derided it when there is good evidence that it came from God.(See Outlines of Moral Theology [1952], pg.67; Emphasis mine).
Theologian Marin: If, after a prudent judgment, it is determined that a given revelation is authentic, the one who has received the revelation should accept it in the spirit of faith. It is disputed among the theologians whether this act of faith is an act of divine faith; it seems to us that it is. Moreover, if a private revelation contains a message for others and it has been accepted as an authentic revelation, those persons also have an obligation to accept the truth of the revelation and act upon it.
(See The Theology of Christian Perfection, [1954], pg.661; Emphasis mine).
Theologian Van Noort: It seems indisputable that even a private revelation—at least if it is concerned with matters bearing some relationship to God as our goal—can be believed by the same virtue of faith by which we believe a truth publicly revealed…Granting that the divine origin of the revelation can be established with certainty, the question arises whether such revelations not only can be believed but ought to be believed. Briefly we think the answer is this: such a revelation ought to be believed both by the one who receives it and by those for whom it is destined: the rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin.
(See Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 3:215).
Hence, Church approved private revelations seem to have some obligation for the faithful to whom they are directed. Think of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus during this month of June. Can anyone worthy of the name Catholic seriously deny the authenticity of the private revelations of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque? Fatima has an incredible amount of evidence and the full approval of Pope Pius XII (and the implicit approval of Pope Pius XI). It's message is for all true Catholics the world over. In the words of theologian Van Noort, I don't think you can "outrightly deny it" without contempt for the Church and "some sort of sin." I retract my hitherto held belief that denying an approved private revelation outright can be done without concomitant contempt for Holy Mother Church.
Objections Considered
There are many objections raised against Fatima, and I cannot possibly address them all. In this time of Great Apostasy, one must remember that without a pope, there is no Magisterial authority that can pass judgement on these issues and make necessary clarifications and distinctions. To bring them up only serves to sow doubt in the minds of the faithful when (in a very real sense) the Church cannot currently defend Her actions regarding the approval of Fatima.
Objection: The Blessed Mother was reported as appearing immodestly dressed.
Reply: Much of this "information" comes from sources of a dubious nature. Certain files are touted as "definitive" when such simply is not the case. Unfortunately, we can't get a Roman Congregation or a pope to give us the authentic sources in the Great Apostasy. Our Lady of Fatima said, “Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.” How does that jibe with the alleged reports of her immodest dress? Where did this accusation arise? Read the next objection and find out.
Objection: Fatima was predicted by occultists and is occult (of Satan).
Reply: An approved apparition cannot be of Satan. The Holy Ghost would not permit it.
A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):
The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your
work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.
~ Stella Matutina
So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (From a booklet entitled Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima, [hereinafter "WPATF"] no named author, pg. 33).
What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:
- Can teleport himself through time and space
- Has made contact with Bigfoot
- Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there
These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by anti-Catholics to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of the 96 endnotes reference this occult book.
Accusation: The Blessed Mother was allegedly dressed immodestly.
Throughout the book, much is made of alleged claims by the seers of Fatima that Mary was immodestly dressed. From WPATF:
In 1917, the Catholic priest and investigator Canon Manuel Nunes Formigao interviewed the three Fatima children. Here is some of what he wrote:
Jacinta confirms that Our Lady’s dress fell only to the knees… Our Lady obviously could not have appeared other than dressed with the utmost decency and modesty…{This} constitutes a serious problem, opposing the very validity of the Apparition, giving rise in the spirit to the dread that this whole affair is a mystification, prepared by the Prince of Darkness. (pgs. 25-26).
This information is supplied by (you guessed it) Celestial Secrets. The dominant instrument used by the authors and promoters of that book, to convince the reader of their research prowess and to buildup interest and credibility for their product, is the highlighting of their previous visit to the secured Fatima Shrine archives in 1978. During that visit they were permitted to view the largely unknown personal notes of the local Fatima priests of that year of 1917, especially those who had directly interviewed the children. They have since been made public in 1992. They tell a different story from the cherry-picked quotes.
These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930.
Objection: The children at Fatima were given Holy Communion from a Chalice. That's against Church law. They were not fasting, and Francesco wasn't even sure what he received.
Reply: These are many objections that center on Church law, not Natural or Divine Positive Law. God can dispense from any ecclesiastical law. From the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion, issued in 1910 under Pope St. Pius X, it reads:
The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later. It is still found in the Greek and Oriental Churches. But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only...
From all this it is clear that the age of discretion for receiving Holy Communion is that at which the child knows the difference between the Eucharistic Bread and ordinary, material bread, and can therefore approach the altar with proper devotion. Perfect knowledge of the things of faith, therefore, is not required, for an elementary knowledge suffices-some knowledge (aliqua cognitio); similarly full use of reason is not required, for a certain beginning of the use of reason, that is, some use of reason (aliqualis usus rationis) suffices. (Emphasis mine).
It is clear there is nothing contrary to Divine Positive Law regarding Holy Communion under the species of Wine, and "some use of reason"--(knowing the Eucharist is special) suffices. It was on this basis that the mentally retarded were allowed to receive Communion. Hence, Francesco knew receiving something (Communion) from an angel must be special. These "arguments" display a serious lack of theological knowledge.
Objection: Lucia made predictions that didn't come true. Had the Blessed Mother truly spoken to her, the predictions would have been true. Lucia was wrong about the war ending soon, and Portugal did NOT "keep the dogma of the Faith" after Vatican II.
Reply: Did Lucia really make "false predictions"? Some point to the prediction that if men didn't amend their lives a worse war (WWII) would begin "During the pontificate of Pope Pius XI." WWII began on September 1, 1939 with Hitler's invasion of Poland, almost six months into the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Or did it? Many historians have WWII in four phases, and while the war in the West began in 1939, in the East it began with the invasion of China by the Imperial Japanese in 1937--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.
What about when Lucia claimed the war (WWI) would end "today" or "soon" and it didn't end until November 11, 1918? According to an amazing compilation on Fatima by Bernard F. Kahout entitled Fatima the Spectacular (2017) there are over twenty (20) differently worded statements o this point by the children of Fatima (Lucia and Jacinta principally). It makes sense given the length of the interrogations and their young age. I can't possibly repeat it all here, but a good case can be made that what Lucia said was "pray that the war come to an end." (See pgs. 44-55). No contradiction there. Lastly, we have no Magisterial authority to tell us which statement was the one truly stated by Our Lady. So why make a big deal of something that quite probably wasn't even said?
Lastly, a problem for me was the statement that "Portugal will always keep the dogma of the faith." According to many reports, I discovered the statement does NOT end with a period but an ellipsis. That makes it part of a sentence, and we don't know why the other part was left out or what it said. It might have read, "Portugal will always keep the dogma of the Faith until the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII" or similar words "until the second half of the 20th century," "until there is a false ecumenical council called by a false pope," etc.
Conclusion
Did Our Lady appear at Fatima? Most assuredly, she did. I can no more deny Fatima than I can deny the revelations of Our Lord to His great saint, Margaret Mary Alacoque. However, I will not make private revelations the focal point of the Faith, nor should anyone. Can we simply deny Fatima (or any approved revelation) without contempt for the Church and some sin? I don't believe we can.
What is the purpose of having a Magisterium if we don't heed Her when She tells us what we can believe? Can we ever go wrong by believing in something the Church tells us is "worthy of belief"? No. Can we ever go wrong by not believing what the Church tells us is "worthy of belief"? In many different ways we can, and most probably will. Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis
Steven Speray was one of those who denied it. Thank you very much for this article Introibo.
ReplyDeleteRyan,
DeleteThank you my friend! Please keep in mind, that the purpose of my post is not to point fingers but merely lay out the reasons why Fatima should be believed.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Was Father Manuel Marques Ferreira (the local parish priest) committing a sin when he didn't believe in the children and called it demonic? He didn't even go to see the miracle and it appears that he was always skeptical.
ReplyDelete@anon6:01
DeleteNo, because the Church SHOULD be skeptical (and is such) if and until it is approved. He is a priest devoid of Magisterial authority. Did he write or preach against it AFTER the bishop approved and AFTER Pope Pius XI granted the indulgence? AFTER the 1940 approval of Pope Pius XII? I'll trust two pontiffs and the bishop over a mere priest who got it wrong.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I believe Fatima is authentic, and while I'm not a great devotee of this apparition, I always end my recitation of the Rosary by asking Our Lady of Fatima to pray for us. Let us listen to what Our Lady and the Church tell us and not listen to the so-called experts.
ReplyDeleteSimon
DeleteRight on!
God Bless,
---Introibo
It would be a nice gesture on the part of Mr. Speray to retract his article and issue an apology.
ReplyDeleteTo anonymous 7:18 Why would Mr Speray do that when nothing in Introibo's article refuted any of the facts Mr Speray presented?
Delete@anon7:18
DeleteSteve is a good man. I'm sure he's meditating and praying about all of this information.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon3:20
DeleteLol!
Thank you Introibo for clearing this up. One thing I am not sure about given the witness testimony to the Miracle of the Sun is the movement of the sun itself. Did it actually move around or did the sun 'dance in place' with its surface displaying different colour effects like that of a C64 'demo' program ? Perhaps it was both. I've often wondered why She would do it that way.
ReplyDeletecairsahr__stjoseph
DeleteI'm not sure, and I don't think it makes a difference. It was miraculous in nature either way.
God Bless,
---Introibo
There's been natural explanations all of which makes sense. The question is Lucia's testimony on the consecration in 1984 is problematic. The fake Lucia story is out there like the fake Paul 6. How much nonsense do we need? Next will be ufo disclosure.
Delete@anon5:49
DeleteThe natural explanations don't go very far. Fr. Jacki, a priest and scientist, is one of many who showed that to be the case. The Modernists at the Vatican have obscured much and I wouldn't trust anything in 1984, or later when Ratzinger tried to explain away the Third Secret.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What about Lucia supporting JP2 and his consecration? She was a novus ordo and died the same year as JP2. It doesnt look good for Fatima and how the novus ordo see it in support of the Vatican2 religion. Now the crazies come out with a fake Lucy to justify Fatima.
Delete@anon6:20
DeleteI thought it crazy too about the fake Sr Lucia, but based on solid evidence from Novus Ordo Watch, it doesn’t seem far-fetched at all. Mario Derksen is one of the most grounded men I’ve ever known.
Yet, just because someone has had a revelation doesn’t make them infallible. Lucia was a simple woman. Many great clerics were very confused and accepted the false popes at the beginning.
Remember, the Church only approved the 1917 apparitions, nothing more, and it doesn’t make the seer an oracle.
—-Introibo
Unfortunately, much of the message and secrets associated with Fatima have been filtered by the Modernists in Rome. We simply do not know how much of the actual message was corrupted by those Modernists. Besides, all those messages and secrets are private revelation. The Church says there was an apparition worthy of belief. That is all I need to know. I do not speculate on all the secrets.
ReplyDeleteTom,
DeleteYes, the actual messages were tampered with by the Modernists and your attitude is the Catholic one.
God Bless,
---Introibo
As always, an excellent and very interesting article, dear Introibo. May God reward you for your work in defense of the Faith and Our Lady.
ReplyDeleteThere is our Spanish translation: https://wwwmileschristi.blogspot.com/2026/06/defensa-de-las-apariciones-en-fatima.html
For the record: That “Furtado de Mendonça” is not a place, but a person: Filipe Furtado de Mendonça (fl. c.1920 - 1981). He was a journalist and popularizer of Spiritism who wrote a pamphlet titled “Um raio de luz sobre Fátima” (A Ray of Light on Fátima), in which he mentions that this episode of “automatic writing” took place during a séance led by the singer and medium Carlos Calderón (in Portuguese: http://ctec.ufp.pt/quando-o-jn-e-o-dn-anteciparam-o-13-de-maio/).
Miles Christi resistens
DeleteThank you for spreading the word and for that great piece of information, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
To Miles, Rejecting Fatima is not an attack on Our Lady. The Eastern Orthodox love Our Lady and they don't accept any Catholic apparition.
DeleteHe that has ear, let him hear.
ReplyDelete@anon12:10
DeleteIndeed!
God Bless,
---Introibo
I do not believe that our Heavenly mother would have her children stare at the sun. Anyways, they see the miracle of the sun all the time at Medjugorge apparently. The file Steven Speray used to quote the kids about the length of the dress didn’t come from occult sources. It came from a book published in 1950 that you can buy from EWTN. I don’t think you sufficiently answered the charge that they were wrong about when WWI would end. You also did not address the Fatima prayer, which is heretical. Why would an angel give communion? Only priests can consecrate a host. Where did the angel get it? Why would Mary give a secret for the Pope when she already did that at La Salette? Pius XII consecrated Russia to the immaculate Heart: so why hasn’t it converted? To me Fatima is a mystery wrapped in a riddle inside an enigma. But I think the key to understanding is that Fatima Prayer, which I know is heretical.
ReplyDelete@anon1:46
DeleteYou write: "I do not believe that our Heavenly mother would have her children stare at the sun."
Reply: Obviously, it was miraculous as no one went blind.
You write: "Anyways, they see the miracle of the sun all the time at Medjugorge apparently"
Reply: Yes, and the pagan magicians were able to replicate the miracles of Moses to discredit him. (See Exodus chapters 7 & 8).
You write: "The file Steven Speray used to quote the kids about the length of the dress didn’t come from occult sources. It came from a book published in 1950 that you can buy from EWTN."
Reply: Read what I wrote above:
"These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930. "
You write: "I don’t think you sufficiently answered the charge that they were wrong about when WWI would end."
Reply: Read "Fatima the Spectacular" referenced above. An in-depth account of how it is not wrong.
You write: "You also did not address the Fatima prayer, which is heretical."
Reply: I have seen various versions of that prayer. What is the specific wording you think is "heretical" and no true pope (Benedict XV, Pius XI and Pius XII) was able to discern. The one I know "O My Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of Hell and lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy Mercy." No problem there.
You write: "Why would an angel give communion? Only priests can consecrate a host."
Reply: No one claimed the Host was consecrated by the angel. Where did he get It? Christ. Angels have given Communion to Catholics miraculously in the lives of many great saints, such as St. Clare of Assisi.
You write: "Why would Mary give a secret for the Pope when she already did that at La Salette?"
Reply: Is the Blessed Virgin prohibited from doing so? Says who? Also, at LaSalette, part of the messages/secrets were CONDEMNED by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office.
You write: Pius XII consecrated Russia to the immaculate Heart: so why hasn’t it converted?
Reply: For this you need Magisterial authority to give an answer. Who knows the timeline?
God Bless,
---Introibo
I think Steve Speray's article was better. He didnt get bogged down in the reasons for believing when it has false prophecies. Speray doesnt believe Pius II was a true pope.either. I believe Fatima was demonic.
ReplyDelete@anon1:52
DeleteThen you are a vacancy pusher like Ibranyi. You better make the last pope Benedict XV---Pope Pius XI gave indulgences for Fatima. Soon you can get back to 1130AD.
---Introibo
The official documentation of Fatima tells us how our Lady was dressed. It's not dubious. You're lying about the facts.
ReplyDelete@anon1:55
DeleteIf you want to challenge something, fine. Don't attack my character, I'm no liar. It is dubious as to the reports of the children themselves. All was resolved by the MAGISTERIUM. Read what I wrote above. If Our Lady was fake because immodestly dressed, it would be impossible for a two true popes to sanction the apparition as "worthy of belief" as Popes Pius XI and XII were protected by the Holy Ghost.
---Introibo
It's not dubious. It's in the official interview with their own priest who didn't believe because of that description. Your popes were either fooled or they aren't popes.
Delete@anon4:47
DeleteLet me repeat what I wrote:
These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930. "
Did you interview that priest? Were you privy to all the deliberations? Were you present when small children were scared and tired? Most importantly---are you protected from giving evil and error to the Church by the Holy Ghost?
The answer to all is in the negative.
---Introibo
We have the documentation which you're conveniently not showing. You assumed the magisterium approved fatima the way everyone assumed the magisterium gave us Vatican 2.
Delete@anon5:43
Delete"We" have documentation? I'm "not showing" it? Yeah. Ok.
FACTS:
* The encyclical of Pope Pius XII gives approval to Fatima--he directly discusses Our Lady of Fatima.
* The radio address of Pope Pius XII gives his approval
* Pope Pius XI gave approval by granting Indulgences for Fatima
* The local bishop with Ordinary Jurisdiction approved and was never reversed in his Judgement by the Vatican.
Fatima was approved by the Magisterium.
---Introibo
well, maybe Pius12 wasn't a true pope? This group says the last true pope was Pius 9 and wrote a book on Fatima saying it was diabolical, especially the vision of hell. the freemasons had been planning for a long time. isn't it possible they had many popes installed all who were influenced by modernism along the way? or the V2 takeover would not have been so successful if the false popes started right at that same time frame?
ReplyDeletehttp://web.archive.org/web/20191219115422/http://ourladysresistance.org/fatima-and-apostasy.html
@anon2:05
DeleteAs I wrote to a commenter above, you become a vacancy pusher. Maybe Pope Pius XI wasn't a true pope either as he gave an indulgence to Fatima. Let's go back to 1130AD like Richard Ibranyi. There is no evidence of apostasy pre-1958, unless you want to twist texts out of context to "prove heresy" like Mike Bizzaro (yes his real name) who has Pope Pius X as the last pope (no saint either since Pius X was canonized by Pius XII).
---Introibo
Aren't you a vacancy pusher? Why are sedes only correct as to last pope? Yes maybe those others you mention are not true Popes either. I don't know who Richard I is but I noted this group who claims Pius 9 last true pope. Your group seems same to me, just a different last true pope. The majority of the world thinks the current Vatican is legitimate so no need for sarcasm for those of us trying to weed our way through this horrible mess.
DeleteThat's not an argument. You're a vacancy pusher to John 23. We're trying to arrive at truth. You're twisting the story to fit your theology. Pius 12 is not Pope for other things, not Fatima. Pius 11 didn't say Fatima is worthy of belief. You're argumentation is that of a lawyer trying to make his side look good rather than an objective observer with real.questions.
Delete@anon5:26
DeleteYou're going down an evil road to perdition. Why is it Pope Pius XII? For many good reasons:
See https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/02/a-sedevacantist-primer.html
Pope Pius IX? Keep going. Richard Ibranyi started with Fred and Bobby Dimond and started to apply Feeneyite theology to keep pushing back the time of the vacancy. Currently the last pope died in 1130AD according to Ibranyi,
Here's his disturbing website:
https://www.johnthebaptist.us/jbw_english/default.htm
He has a cult in a New Mexico town called "Truth or Consequences."
Here's my post on Mike Bizzaro, who has Pope St. Pius X as the last true pope:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/08/pushing-back-time-of-vacancy.html
Don't fall into the Ibranyi pathway vacancy pushing. He lives in Truth or Consequences. Ironically, he has forsaken the Truth and if he doesn't convert, he will face the (eternal) consequences.
Praying for you!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon5:39
DeletePope Pius XI granted indulgences to Fatima. That's de facto approval, unless you think a true pope could give a false apparition (or worse a diabolic apparition) Church approval.
Pope Pius XII is not pope for "other things"? He's one of the greatest popes. I'd like to see the "proof"--like that of Bizzaro who makes up principles and wrongly applies them.
---Introibo
Those who are willing, at this point, to disbelieve Our Lady of Fatima or Pius XII are not yet so far astray - they are not going to go straight to the antipopes and believe them and the false council as a consequence. As it happens, at this point it is not necessary for everyone to believe the same thing anyway. That can be fixed later.
ReplyDeleteAs for the misunderstanding regarding Our Lady's dress I believe Introibo's reference to Francisco's testimony clears that up. Not enough for some, perhaps; as a consequence of the current apostasy dragging on seemingly endlessly are those beginning to be inclined to suspicion. What can one say to that except some of us have sufficient reason for that never to possibly happen. God bless.
Great article Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI find it strange how some of the comments push this idea that we shouldn't believe in Pope Pius XII. Regardless, Pope Pius XI approved in Fatima as well as the bishop of Fatima. If Pope Pius XI granted an indulgence for making a pilgrimage to it, then why are these anonymous cowards so aggressive in their approach against Fatima when any Catholic is free to believe in it according to the hierarchy? Do they not trust in the popes and bishops, and if not why believe in the Church at all?
-Mark Bentley