(3) The "angel" allegedly gave the Precious Blood to two visionaries, thereby breaking Church discipline, something that a messenger of God would never, ever do;  

In both the Coptic and the Byzantine rites the laity recieve the Precious Blood.

However you do raise many valid points. I know I what can be said maybe justly or unjustly against me saying this but my first reaction was to think that at the end of the day the events at Fatima are not that important...No one has declared belief in them De Fide and therefore it is pointless bringing it up in a theological debate as proof of anything as some people here have been doing.

... my first reaction was to think that at the end of the day the events at Fatima are not that important...No one has declared belief in them De Fide and therefore it is pointless bringing it up in a theological debate as proof of anything as some people here have been doing.

Not true.  Just like a Catholic would be forced to rejected an alleged apparition of, say, Martin Luther, because if Jesus or Mary appeared to Luther it would have been to denounce and convert him, so too must a Catholic denounce Fatima because Mary would never have appeared to a schismatic child (remember Lucy was above the age of reason) without denouncing her and warning her of antipope Benedict XV.

And most certainly, Holy Communion could never, ever have been given to a schismatic Lucy, who was claiming allegiance to an antipope.  It is indirectly a denial of many dogmas to claim belief or even the allowed belief in Fatima as an authentic apparition.

Catholics must absolutely, in every detail, defend the Faith with precision and zeal, else heresies creep in.  Fatima must be denounced.

6.) So did Fr. Feeney.  

And your point?  "Fr." Feeney was a disgrace.  He most certainly was not a Catholic.  Not only was he a schismatic, as you rightly point out, but a heretic as well.

The rest of what you wrote doesn't even deserve comment.

Raoul76 made a good point about Fatima - about how the "O Seculo" the Masonic Atheistic newspaper the very next day proclaimed Fatima to be a "Sign from Heaven".  They sure seemed willing to support the Church, those Masons...

I thought you spoke Latin Eamon.

Go translate 'aut'
 

Anyone who studies Fatima even for an afternoon will be inundated with things that just don't add up.

( 1 ) It promises an age of peace if the consecration of Russia is fulfilled, but who wants ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic peace?  In 1917 the last Catholic monarchy was about to fall.  This is nothing but the same "peace" sold by Pacelli, making me believe that there is a Masonic element to Fatima.

( 2 ) The first priest to interview Lucia saw the "finger of the devil" in her claims, and so do I.

( 3 ) Lucia as an adult would boast about receiving her first Communion at the age of 6.  Why would Mary pick such a prideful child/woman to reveal anything to?

( 4 ) There is something far too "fairy tale" for my liking about Fatima, complete with the big bad wolf, in this case the Evil Freemasonic Mayor who Threatened to Boil the Wittle Cute Children Alive in a Big Cauldron.  I don't like how Catholics get all sentimental and Spielbergian about Fatima, some of them getting excited about corny, cheesy films on the subject.

( 5 ) The all-important consecration of Russia was supposedly revealed to Lucy in 1917, but it wasn't until another apparition of "Mary" to Lucy in 1929 that she was allowed to reveal this revelation.  "Mary" then allowed Russian errors to spread for a full twelve years before authorizing Lucy to say anything.  

( 6 )  There are differing reports about the consecration of Russia, some saying that Lucy said in 1933 that it was already too late.  No one agrees on when the deadline is or if there's a deadline at all.  Father Gruner acts as if it can still be done now even though we don't have a Pope.  This keeps people in a drooling trance while they sit and pray una cuм with these heresiarch anti-Popes.

( 7 ) I have referred to how Fatima got a big boost from being published as a real event in a Freemasonic newspaper.  Bishop Fulton Sheen, likewise, was a tool of Bolshevik Jєωs and he also gave it a big boost.  Always there is this connection to ʝʊdɛօ-Masonry.  

And please, don't even try to argue with me about Fulton Sheen working for Jєωs.  If there is one thing that I know like the back of my hand, it is Hollywood.  I grew up in the thick of this Jєωιѕн stew and tried to become famous here.  YOU DO NOT GET ON TV WITHOUT LICKING THE Jєωιѕн CLOVEN HOOF.

( 8 ) What are the "errors of Russia" anyway?  State-sponsored atheism?  Am I the only one who saw how this fear of Russia, bolstered by Fatima, led Americans into even more pride than they already possessed, and how it caused them to begin promoting religious liberty as a great good against the atheism of Russia?  

Instead of looking inwards at their own errors, filtered into their brains by Cardinal Gibbons, Americans turned outwards and demonized Russia.  They threw caution to the wind and thoroughly gave in to the spirit of 1776 which they saw as a bulwark against communism when it was nothing of the kind.  Russian communism is merely the "antithesis" to the "synthesis" of the ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracies in the Hegelian schema.  

There is a connection between blind, arrogant American patriotism and Fatima, a connection exemplified by Bishop Fulton Sheen.  I'll grant you, this could be blamed on a misinterpretation of Fatima rather than Fatima itself.  But it does make the Fatima "Mary" seem like a past-master of the Hegelian dialectic!  There were many more errors going around in 1917 than just the errors of Russia.

( 9 ) The consecration of Russia could not be more irrelevant to the present crisis.  Whether Fatima was a real apparition or not, distortions of it have actually become harmful to the faith.

*****

Conclusion:  Whether Fatima is true or false, leave it alone already.  If I hear one more time about consecrating Russia... The Catholics are reduced to total confusion and people are worrying about consecrating Russia.  This is insanity!  

What we know is that Mary will one day save the world.  Do we need Fatima to know this?  No, it is simply a repeat of what was told to St. Dominic.  This, like the call to repentance, could simply be a way for the demonic apparition to win the trust of its hearers before slipping in the poision.  We have seen in easily-disproved apparitions like Medjugorje that the devil may be using witch-seers to mix truth with lies.  

Why is Fatima exempt from this suspicion?  Just because it's more believable than Medjugorje?  More believable does not mean entirely believable.

Your questions evince more of your own ignorance than problems with Fatima per se.  After all, is it really a valid objection that just because you don't understand something it must be avoided for that is essentially what your list implies.