Tuy September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944
JMJ
Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!
Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' in front of a multitude that was cheering him.
But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.
Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44
Oh, how bizarre! It turns out someone else already wrote a rather long letter to Guimaraes containing a lot of the same arguments I'm making above (https://www.traditioninaction.org/polemics/F_04_Secret11.html)! :laugh1: How about that! And he wrote a response. Man, this has been a very, very strange day.
The writer asks at the end, "Now that you have published this text, when do we start counting the 69 weeks until the destruction of Rome?" :laugh1:
5. That being said, it is theologically erroneous to talk about the head of the Church being transferred away from Rome. Theologians teach that Rome will always be the head of the Church until the end of the world, and that the bishop of the diocese of Rome will always be the pope and vice versa.
That "long letter" and response are from 2010. See the following article with more up-to-date (2018) considerations:.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g45_Secret_1.htm
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g46_Secret_2.htm
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g47_Secret_3.htm
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g48_Secret_4.htm
There are 4 parts to that Homer Sweeney discussion. I haven't studied his commentary in detail. But I thought you should know about it.
.
These articles are directed towards people who accept the "official" 3rd secret as the authentic one. Presumably anyone who would be considering the docuмent under discussion would not be one of those people.
As far as the 69 weeks being interpreted as years, that adds up to a pretty lame threat. "You better shape up over there in Rome, or we'll destroy the city in almost half a millennium from the time this threat gets published!" Yeah, I'm just shaking over here.
No, that really doesn't make sense to me.
Could happen physically for one reason or another, as when the Popes went to Avignon..
"Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima."
That said, where is this See in Fatima exactly since the "kingdom" of Wojtyla?
What do you mean "almost half a millenium?" A millenium is 1000 years. 69 "weeks [shavuim]" is 69 years..
69 years is the time from 1959 (when the Third Secret was supposed to be made public) to the point where "the City will be destroyed" later this decade. The "City" is the Counterfeit Catholic Church, which will be destroyed when Jesus comes back to take care of it.
.
I'm sorry, I was thinking of the 69 weeks of Daniel. Those were periods of seven years each. If you're saying that a week means a year, then I would have to be skeptical. I've only ever seen the term "week" refer to either a seven-day period, or (in Scripture) a seven-year period. I've never seen the term "week" mean "year".
69 weeks of years would be 483 years. 69 weeks would be a year and about three months.
1 In the first year of Darius the son of Assuerus of the seed of the Medes, who reigned over the kingdom of the Chaldeans: 2 The first year of his reign, I Daniel understood by books the number of the years, concerning which the word of the Lord came to Jeremias the prophet, that seventy years should be accomplished of the desolation of Jerusalem. 3 And I set my face to the Lord my God, to pray and make supplication with fasting, and sackcloth, and ashes.
21 As I was yet speaking in prayer, behold the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, flying swiftly touched me at the time of the evening sacrifice. 22 And he instructed me, and spoke to me, and said: O Daniel, I am now come forth to teach thee, and that thou mightest understand. 23 From the beginning of thy prayers the word came forth: and I am come to shew it to thee, because thou art a man of desires: therefore do thou mark the word, and understand the vision. 24 Seventy weeks [shavuim] are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the saint of saints may be anointed. 25 Know thou therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times.
10 For thus saith the Lord: When the seventy years shall begin to be accomplished in Babylon, I will visit you: and I will perform my good word in your favour, to bring you again to this place. 11 For I know the thoughts that I think towards you, saith the Lord, thoughts of peace, and not of affliction, to give you an end and patience. 12 And you shall call upon me, and you shall go: and you shall pray to me, and I will hear you. 13 You shall seek me, and shall find me: when you shall seek me with all your heart. 14 And I will be found by you, saith the Lord: and I will bring back your captivity, and I will gather you out of all nations, and from all the places to which I have driven you out, saith the Lord: and I will bring you back from the place to which I caused you to be carried away captive. 15 Because you have said: The Lord hath raised us up prophets in Babylon: 16 For thus saith the Lord to the king that sitteth upon the throne of David, and to all the people that dwell in this city, to your brethren that are not gone forth with you into captivity. 17 Thus saith the Lord of hosts: Behold I will send upon them the sword, and the famine, and the pestilence: and I will make them like bad figs that cannot be eaten, because they are very bad. 18 And I will persecute them with the sword, and with famine, and with the pestilence: and I will give them up unto affliction to all the kingdoms of the earth: to be a curse, and an astonishment, and a hissing, and a reproach to all the nations to which I have driven them out: 19 Because they have not hearkened to my words, saith the Lord: which I sent to them by my servants the prophets, rising by night, and sending: and you have not heard, saith the Lord. 20 Hear ye therefore the word of the Lord, all ye of the captivity, whom I have sent out from Jerusalem to Babylon.
How would someone gain access to this docuмent who would want to send it to Tradition in Action?My first thought was, Sr Lucy just wrote a 2nd edition of the 3rd Secret and gave it to someone to mail, later, at a certain time. The 3rd Secret was not long; Sr Lucy probably had it memorized. Or...Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucy in the 80s and said, "Here's a 3rd Secret, version 2. Have your sister/brother mail this to person A if x, y or z doesn't happen."
There are two different prophecies there. Obviously sin was not abolished, and the saint of saints was not anointed, etc., 70 years after the building of the walls of Jerusalem.
The traditional interpretation of the 70 weeks of years of Daniel matches perfectly the date of the coming of Christ, the beginning of His public life, and His death, accurate to within months. I would have to look up all the dates to show it to you, but this is getting off topic and I don't have the time right now.
Yeti, you raise some good questions. I will read the articles posted, which have similar questions as yours..
My first thought was, Sr Lucy just wrote a 2nd edition of the 3rd Secret and gave it to someone to mail, later, at a certain time. The 3rd Secret was not long; Sr Lucy probably had it memorized. Or...Our Lady appeared to Sr Lucy in the 80s and said, "Here's a 3rd Secret, version 2. Have your sister/brother mail this to person A if x, y or z doesn't happen."
Church experiences what Christ experienced. Church is in passion as Christ was in passion. Christ in the Garden. Men came, fell back. Christ said, it is not my hour, not the Fathers time. When the hour came, Christ was taken away.
Our Lady appears to Sister Lucia in Tuy, Spain in 1929. She said to Lucia, the hour as come to consecrate Russia. Pope Pius XI is pope at this time. He did not do it. Our Lady said to Sister Lucia, he did in "half-measure". Not good. He did not say Russia, but "the world". Is that not a mockery to God! Is that not just totally mortal!! Our Lady said, If he does not consecrate he will be likened to King Louis XIII(?) of France that did not consecrate France to the Sacred Heart, as he was commanded to do. He did not and he was dethroned and beheaded.
In this case, possible, Pope Pius XIII in his pontificate went sour, did not do God's Command, lost his authority and Church was without a head? Possible?
Satan begins his 100 years as of 1929-1930. Possible, no continual Mass 3 and a half years starts about 2027? and Satan time of 100 years, ends 2030?
My thoughts. Pope Leo XIII and Cardinal Manning thought that Pope's election is infallible, BUT, can a Pope go wrong in his pontificate. Sure.
Guimaraes thinks the text was tampered with by transposing some of the words with the help of photoshop, and he made some minor changes to what it says, but this is substantially accurate.
A few observations.
1. This text mentions nothing about a council, which everyone thought the text would include. Indeed, it says little about what this evil pope will actually do. Guimaraes thinks the docuмent actually says (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm) the pope was telling people to praise the devil, but that's not all that much more informative.
Atila Guimaraes is of course, fluent in Portuguese, so he had an advantage in spotting the incorrect grammar in the Message.
He thought the message was a remnant of the original message, but it had been changed via a photostatic copy using manual scissors cut & paste technique.
2. The message is nearly useless. The first part says basically that an evil pope will walk into an ugly church. That's it?
Atila thought the message was horrific and understandable by any Catholic child, the Holy Father worshipping the devil.
Who could imagine it and what would it mean for the world?
3. Actually the message is implicitly sedevacantist, in that it says the person is an "individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' ". This is a strange way to describe the pope.
TIA is staunchly anti-sede-vacantist, so they wouldn't promote this interpretation.
Anyone have any thoughts on this bizarre story?
Well, reference to the "Kingdom" of Wojtyla actually lines up with the Dimond Brothers interpretation of the Popes being the kings referred to in the book of Revelation.(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Santu%C3%A1rio_de_F%C3%A1tima_%2845%29_-_Jul_2008.jpg/1280px-Santu%C3%A1rio_de_F%C3%A1tima_%2845%29_-_Jul_2008.jpg)
When was this text originally discovered? Allegedly written in 1944, it would be interesting to mention JP2.
Wasn't the "church" built in Fatima some kind of Modernist abomination anyway?
Hail Holy Queen, blessed Virgin of Fatima, Lady of the Immaculate Heart, refuge and path that guides to God! Pilgrim of the Light that we receive from your hands, I thank God the Father that, at all times and places, acts in human history; pilgrim of the Peace that you announce here, I praise Christ, our peace, and for the world I ask for concord among all peoples; pilgrim of the Hope which the Spirit encourages, I want to be prophet and messenger so as to wash the feet of all at the same table that unites us.
Hail Mother of Mercy, Lady of the white robe! At this place where one hundred years ago you showed all the designs of our God's mercy, I look upon your robe of light and, as bishop dressed in white [como bispo vestido de branco], I remember all those who, robed in baptismal white, want to live in God and pray the mysteries of Christ to attain peace.
...the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!'. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it' a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father'. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.
"But I will die for you and to your glory, and rise again from death; and so I will deliver my people from Hell, that you may live gloriously with me in my kingdom, as that deceiver [Jesus] pretended He had done before." And he [Antichrist] will tell his beloved ones to run him through with a sword and wrap him in a clean shroud, until the day of his resurrection. And he will delude them into thinking they are killing him, and so they will fulfill his commands. Then he will pretend to rise again, and bring out a writing as if for the salvation of souls, which is really a dire curse. And he will give this to people for a sign and command them to adore him. And if any person of faith refuses for love of My name, he will kill that person in great suffering and torture. And thus all who see and hear this will be struck with great wonder and doubtful amazement, as My beloved John shows... (Scivias, Book III, Vision 11, Section 31)
For so too will he [Antichrist] pretend to die, as if to redeem his people by his death, and to raise himself up again to return to life. He will also have an inscription written upon the foreheads of his followers, through which to introduce into the every evil, as too the ancient serpent, after deceiving humankind, kept them captive by stoking them with lust. Through that scripture he will inspire them by magical craft to oppose baptism and the Christian name, so that they will not desire to leave him, and all will style themselves after him, just as Christians are named after Christ. (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 18. St. Hildegard Von Bingen, The Book of Divine Works. Pages 469, Part III, Vision 5, Chapter 31).
When was this text originally discovered? Allegedly written in 1944, it would be interesting to mention JP2..
Many will agree that the text of the Third Secret released by the Vatican in 2000 is fake.
But we need to understand why they faked it and how they plan to use it in the future..
.
All we know is when it was sent to Guimaraes, which was some time in 2010. Unfortunately this was after the gift of the piece of St. Peter's tomb to become the cornerstone of the church in Fatima in 2004; if this text could be proved to have existed before 2004, that would be a strong argument in favor of its authenticity.
The handwriting proves that the TIA Third Secret was written by the same hand as known texts of the real Sister Lucia. What other "proof" is needed that the text existed before 2004?.
Consider the source. Atila Guimarães has a shady past and has never disavowed being a "slave" to TFP cult-leader Plinio de Oliveria.
One of our readers from Portugal sent us the facsimile of a handwritten text that could be the text of the Third Secret of Fatima.
This unsigned text supposedly was written by Sister Lucy in her Convent of Tuy on September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944 - it is not clear whether the number indicating the month is 9 or 4. A fingerprint of Sister Lucy was placed on the bottom of the page as a guarantee of its authenticity. Some unidentified person who had access to this docuмent released a photo of it very recently.
We are posting this facsimile below for the perusal of TIA readers. It is followed by a typed text in Portuguese and our English translation of it.
We do not assert that this is undoubtedly the true Third Secret. We post it as an invitation for our readers to discuss it and seek the opinion of experts in order to find whether this docuмent is authentic or not.
Sadly, there is a hypothesis that should not be excluded: If the date is April 1, then some priest or even bishop might be playing an April Fools' joke, spreading an adulterated text to amuse himself. This would be a sin against the Second Commandement, we believe, since it would be taking the name of God's Blessed Mother in vain. But, in these times of post-conciliar lack of seriousness, TIA has already experienced something of this kind (click here (https://www.traditioninaction.org/bev/120bev03-05-2010.htm#joker)).
He was initially skeptical about the message, considering that it might even be an April Fools joke..
Well, reference to the "Kingdom" of Wojtyla actually lines up with the Dimond Brothers interpretation of the Popes being the kings referred to in the book of Revelation.
When was this text originally discovered? Allegedly written in 1944, it would be interesting to mention JP2.
Wasn't the "church" built in Fatima some kind of Modernist abomination anyway?
Another strange thing is that the original texts says "Juan Pablo II", which is John Paul II in Spanish. The Portuguese name for John Paul II would be "João Paulo II"..
This is very strange. I have never heard a Portuguese speaker calling John Paul II "Juan Pablo II". It gives the impression that the text was written by a Spanish speaker who did not know good Portuguese.
.
Thank you, John, this is very interesting, especially from a native Portuguese speaker.
There was another reader who wrote in the objection you made about the Spanish form of John Paul instead of Portuguese, and unfortunately I can't find it again (that site is terribly badly organized) but basically I think Guimaraes said that Sr. Lucy was living in a convent in Spain at that time, and people use the form of name of people of the language they normally speak. So, since she was probably speaking Spanish there, she would use the Spanish form of John Paul even though the rest of it was Portuguese.
It's similar to how we call her Sr. "Lucy" instead of "Lucia", and how I called you "John" at the beginning of those post. :trollface:
Surely, this is a possibility, but the strange thing is, that even if she did not know how to translate "John Paul II" from Spanish from Portuguese, this is a message that she heard from Our Lady herself, and not from a Spanish speaker..
This is decades before John Paul II became Pope, so, the only occasion that Sr. Lucy had heard this name was in the apparitions decades before. And we know that Our Lady spoke Portuguese with the children, since this was the only language that they could understand, as far as I know.
If we suppose that this docuмent is authentic, we would have to distinguish between the words Our Lady would have spoken and the human characteristics of the seer, Sister Lucy.
If Sister Lucy would have written her report with some grammar mistake - for example, incorrectly using the future of the subjunctive - this would not mean that Our Lady does not know well Portuguese, but would just reflect the level of knowledge that Sister Lucy had of her language when she wrote that message.
The presence of human shortcomings in Divine Revelations is paradigmatic in the case of Moses, who was a stutterer. When he related - stuttering - the message he received from God, his listeners did not conclude that God was also a stutterer, but they excluded the human limitations of Moses from the Commandments that came from God.
Hence, Sister Lucy reporting the name of the future Pontiff as being Juan Pablo in Spanish, instead of João Paulo in Portuguese, could be easily explained by her living in Tuy, Spain, from 1926 until the date she wrote her message in 1944. It would be quite understandable that, living for more than 17 years in a Spanish-speaking convent, she would replace the original João Paulo spoken by Our Lady with its Spanish translation Juan Pablo.
I do not believe that this small confusion in languages distorts the content of the message or speaks against its authenticity. On the contrary, it leads one to deem that the person who wrote that message is Portuguese, influenced by a Spanish-speaking ambience. This actually fits the case of Sister Lucy, as I just noted, and suggests that she wrote that message.
7. The second to last line is very strange to me. It refers to an order, and Rome being destroyed if it doesn't comply within 69 weeks of the publication of the order. The docuмent doesn't contain any orders that I can find. And the deadline of 69 weeks strikes me as a bizarre length of time. First of all, as i said above, Rome can't be destroyed. Secondly, is this a week of days or a week of years, as in Daniel? If the former, that's barely over a year; a short amount of time for a thread. If the latter, that's almost half a millennium before the punishment is carried out; far too long. Also, I wonder if this is why the secret was never published? Because they never wanted to start the clock ticking on those 69 weeks, so the popes never published it?! If so, why would Our Lady have put a threat in the secret that has such a gigantic loophole in it?Thanks Yeti for the reposting of the letter. Not quite sure what you mean by "Rome can't be destroyed." Why can Rome not be destroyed, or totally ransacked? I could even foresee St. Peter's in Rome being totally demolished stone by stone. There is no foundation in Holy Writ or the writings of the fathers that suggests Rome cannot be totally destroyed. In fact, the see of Rome could be removed to Jerusalem, which could happen around the time of antichrist. Apocalypse 11:2 talks about the "Holy City" being tread under foot for 42 months, which is 3.5 years, and might refer to the time of antichrist, and might refer to Rome; but these are speculations. It is most probable that this text refers to the time of antichrist since the next verse refers to the "two witnesses," which are assuredly Enoch and Elias.
Thanks Yeti for the reposting of the letter. Not quite sure what you mean by "Rome can't be destroyed." Why can Rome not be destroyed, or totally ransacked? I could even foresee St. Peter's in Rome being totally demolished stone by stone. There is no foundation in Holy Writ or the writings of the fathers that suggests Rome cannot be totally destroyed. In fact, the see of Rome could be removed to Jerusalem, which could happen around the time of antichrist. Apocalypse 11:2 talks about the "Holy City" being tread under foot for 42 months, which is 3.5 years, and might refer to the time of antichrist, and might refer to Rome; but these are speculations. It is most probable that this text refers to the time of antichrist since the next verse refers to the "two witnesses," which are assuredly Enoch and Elias.
In this thread there is talk of the "70 weeks," but I see no indication of this in the letter. Am I missing something?
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44
Atila Guimarães is not the source, as you can see if you read the first post related to the message. He was initially skeptical about the message, considering that it might even be an April Fools joke.Again I say -- consider the source. Guimarãess is a person who worshipped Mr. Plinio, who publicly said his "confession" to this man, who prayed a mockery of the Ave Maria to this man, who participated in the worship of this man and this man's mother, who is or was part of what Bishop Mayer called an "anti-Catholic, anti-clerical, heretical sect" and who never renounced his "slavery" in this heretical cult. Guimarães has removed from his website his previous statement that he would rather spend time with Mr. Plinio than with Our Lord Himself. He is a master manipulator.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html
Thanks Yeti for the reposting of the letter. Not quite sure what you mean by "Rome can't be destroyed." Why can Rome not be destroyed, or totally ransacked?.
I could even foresee St. Peter's in Rome being totally demolished stone by stone.
The "order" was supposed to be "announced" after the death of Pius XII (9 OCT 1958) and before 1960, according to Our Lady. So basically, the count starts at the Feast of Weeks in 1959. The 69th Feast of Weeks after that occurs in 2027. So, sometime after the Feast of Weeks in 2027 "if...Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.".
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.and
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
I can't beleive that this is being taken seriously. Don't fall for the play-acting antics of Mr. Guimaraes. The objective reality is that he came up with the letter and SAID he was initially skeptical, as if this is "proof" of anything. I urge CI members to pray for the gift of discerment..
Monsignor Fenton wrote an article about this question in great detail...Is this it, Yeti?
OCR text:
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME
According to the divine constitution of Our Lord’s kingdom
on earth, membership in that kingdom, the universal Church
militant, normally involves membership in some local or individual
brotherhood within the universal Church. These individual
brotherhoods within the Catholic Church are of two kinds. First
there are the various local Churches, the associations of the faith-
ful in the different individual regions of the earth. Then there
are the religiones, assemblies of the faithful organized unice et ex
integro for the attainment of perfection on the part of those who
are admitted into them. According to the Apostolic Constitution
Provida mater ecclesia, “the canonical discipline of the state of
perfection as a public state was so wisely regulated by the Church
that, in the case of clerical religious Institutes, in those matters in
general which concern the clerical life of the religious, the Insti-
tutes took the place of dioceses, and membership in a religious
society was equivalent to the incardination of a cleric in a diocese.””!
Among these individual brotherhoods that live within the uni-
versal Church of God on earth, the local Church of Rome mani-
festly occupies a unique position. Theologians of an earlier day
stressed these prerogatives of the Roman Church quite strongly.
Unfortunately, however, in our own time the manuals of sacred
theology, considered as a group, dwell almost exclusively upon the
nature and the characteristics of the Church universal, without
explaining the teaching about the local Church at any length.
Consistently with this trend, they have chosen to teach about the
Holy Father in relation to the Church throughout the entire world,
and have given comparatively little attention to his function pre-
cisely as the head of the Christian Church in the Eternal City.
Thus we and the people whom God has commissioned us to
instruct may be prone to forget that it is precisely by reason of
the fact that he presides over this individual local congregation
that the Holy Father is the successor of St. Peter and thus the
visible head of the entire Church militant. The Christian com-
1The Provida mater ecciesia was issued on Feb. 2, 1947. The translation
of this passage is that of Bouscaren in his Canon Law Digest: Supplement
through 1948 (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1949), p. 66.
454
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME 455
munity of Rome was and remains Peter’s Church. The man who
governs that community with apostolic power in the name of Christ
is Peter’s successor, and is thus Our Lord’s vicar in the rule of
the Church universal.
It is definitely the more common teaching among the scholastic
theologians that the office of the visible head of the entire Church
militant is inseparably attached to the position of the Bishop of
Rome, and that this absolutely permanent attachment exists by
reason of the divine constitution of the Church itself. In other
words, an imposing majority of Catholic theologians who have
written on this particular subject have manifested the belief that
no human agency, not even the Holy Father himself, could render
the primacy of jurisdiction over the Church universal the pre-
rogative of some episcopal see other than that of Rome or other-
wise separate that primacy from the office and the essential pre-
rogatives of the Bishop of Rome. According to this widely ac-
cepted teaching, the successor of St. Peter, the vicar of Christ on
earth, could not possibly be other than the Bishop who presides
over the local Christian community of the Eternal City.
During even its earliest stage of development, scholastic ecclesi-
ology taught expressly that when St. Peter established himself
as the head of the local Christian community in Rome, he was
acting in accordance with God’s own direction. Thus Alvaro
Pelayo teaches that the Prince of the Apostles transferred his See
from Antioch to Rome “iubente Domino,” and that the location
of the principal seat of the Christian priesthood in the “caput et
domina totius mundi” was to be attributed to Divine Providence.”
A century later, the Cardinal John de Turrecremata insisted that
a special command of Christ had made Rome the primatial See
of the Catholic Church.* Turrecremata argued that this action
on the part of Our Lord made it impossible for even the Sovereign
Pontiff himself to detach the primacy from Peter’s own local
Church in the Eternal City. Later Thomas de Vio Cardinal
2Cf. De statu ct planctu ecclesiae, I, a. 40, in Iung, Un Franciscain, théo-
logien du pouvoir pontifical au XIV* siécle: Alvaro Pelayo, Evéque et Péni-
tencier de Jean XXII (Paris: Vrin, 1931), p. 111.
3 Cf. Summa de ecclesia, II, c. 40 (Venice, 1561), p. 154°.
456 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW
Cajetan taught that St. Peter had established his See at Rome
by Our Lord’s express command.‘
The counter-Reformation theologians took up this question in
much greater detail. Dominic Soto sponsored the teaching, previ-
ously attacked by Turrecremata, to the effect that the fixing of
the primatial See at Rome was attributable only to St. Peter, in
his capacity as the head of the universal Church.5 Thus Soto held
that any one of St. Peter’s successors in the Supreme Pontificate
could, if he so chose, transfer the primatial See to some other
city, in exactly the same way and with exactly the same authority
St. Peter had used in bringing the primacy from Antioch to Rome.
Soto’s solution of this question never obtained any considerable
foothold in scholastic ecclesiology. His contemporary, the ever-
truculent Melchoir Cano, derided the contention that, since there
is no scriptural evidence in favor of any divine command that
the primatial See should have been established in Rome, St. Peter’s
transfer from Antioch to Rome must be attributed only to St.
Peter’s own choice.* He employed the occasion of this teaching
to bring out his own teaching on the importance of tradition as a
source of revelation and as a locus theologicus.
The traditional thesis that Rome is and always will be the
primatial See of the Catholic Church received its most important
development in St. Robert Bellarmine’s Controversies. St. Robert
devoted the fourth chapter of the fourth book of his treatise De
Romano Pontifice to the question De Romana ecclesia particulari.
His main thesis in this chapter was the contention that not only
the Roman Pontiff, but also the particular or local Church of the
city of Rome, must be considered as incapable of error in matters
of faith.’
In the course of this chapter St. Robert exposed as “a pious
and most probable teaching” the opinion that “Peter’s cathedra
4Cf. Apologia de comparata auctoritate papae et concilii, c. 13, in Pollet’s
edition of Cajetan’s Scripta theologica (Rome: Angelicuм, 1935), I, 299.
5 Cf. Commentaria in IV Sent., d. 24.
6 Cf. De locis theologicis, Lib. VI, c. 8, in the Opera theologica (Rome:
Filiziani, 1900), II, 44.
7Cf. De controversiis christianae fideit adversus huius temporis hacreticos
(Cologne, 1620), I, col. 811.
5
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME 457
could not be taken away from Rome,”® and that, for this reason,
the individual Roman Church must be considered as both infallible
and indefectible. In support of this thesis which, incidentally, he
considered as an opinion and not as entirely certain, St. Robert
appealed to the doctrine that “God Himself has ordered Peter’s
Apostolic See to be fixed in Rome.”®
St. Robert by no means closed the door entirely on the thesis
of Dominic Soto. He admits the possibility that the divine mandate
according to which St. Peter assumed command of the Church in
Rome might have been merely a kind of “inspiration” from God,
rather than a definite and express order issued by Our Lord
Himself. Always insistent that his thesis was not a matter of
divine faith, he repeated his contention that it was most probable
and pie credendum “that the See has been established at Rome
by divine and immutable precept.”!?
Gregory of Valentia, however, taught that Soto’s opinion on
this subject was singularis nec vero satis tuta.11 Adam Tanner
believed the thesis that “the supreme authority to govern the
Church has been inseparably joined to the Roman See by direct
and divine institution and law,” though not a doctrine of faith,
was still something which could not be denied absque temeritate.!*
In his Tractatus de fide Suarez taught that it seemed more prob-
able and “pious” to say that St. Peter had joined the primacy over
the entire Church militant to the See of Rome by reason of
Our Lord’s own precept and will. Suarez believed, however, that
St. Peter received no such order from Christ prior to the Ascen-
sion.'* The outstanding seventeenth century theologians, Francis
Sylvius and John Wiggers also subscribed to the opinion that the
primacy was permanently attached to the local Church of Rome by
reason of Our Lord’s own command."
8 Cf. ibid., col. 812.
9 [bid., col. 813.
10 Jbid., col. 814.
11 Cf, Valentia’s Commentaria theologica (Ingolstadt, 1603), III, col. 276.
12. Cf. Tanner’s Theologia scholastica (Ingolstadt, 1627), III, col. 240.
13 Cf, Suarez’ Opus de triplici virtute theologica (Lyons, 1621), p. 197.
14 Cf. Sylvius’ De praccipuis fidet nostrae orthodoxae controverstis cuм
nostris haercticis, Lib. IV, q. 1, a. 6, in D’Elbecque’s edition of Sylvius’
Opera omnia (Antwerp, 1698), V, 297; Wigger’s Commentaria de virtutibus
theologicis (Louvain, 1689), p. 63.
\
458 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW
The status of this thesis was further improved when Pope
Benedict XIV inserted it into his De synodo diocesana.’® Pope
Benedict believed that St. Peter had chosen the Roman Church
either at Our Lord’s command, or on his own authority, acting
under divine inspiration or guidance. Billuart taught that Rome
was chosen as a result of Our Lord’s own direct instruction.'® John
Perrone taught that no human authority could transfer the pri-
macy over the universal Church from the See of Rome."
In more recent times interest in this particular thesis has cen-
tered around the question of the manner in which God had joined
the primacy to the episcopate of the local Church of Rome.
Some, like Dominic Palmieri, consider it probable that St. Peter
received a divinely revealed mandate to establish his See perma-
nently at Rome before he assumed the leadership of the local Church
of the Eternal City.1% Others, like Reginald Schultes, believe such
an antecedent command most unlikely, but insist that an explicit
divine mandate to this effect was probably given to St. Peter prior
to his martyrdom.’® Still others, like Cardinal Franzelin and
Bishops Felder and D’Herbigny, give it as their opinion that St.
Peter’s final choice of Rome was brought about by a movement
of divine grace or inspiration of such a nature as to preclude the
possibility of any transfer of the primatial See from Rome at any
subsequent time.”° Cardinal Billot taught that Rome held its posi-
tion dispositione divina, and that this thesis, though not yet defined,
15 Cf. De synodo diocesana, Lib. II, c. 1, in Migne’s Theologiae cursus
completus (Paris, 1840), XXV, col. 825.
16 Cf, Billuart’s Tractatus de regulis fidei, diss. 4, a. 4, in the Summa
Sancti Thomae hodiernis academiarum moribus accommodata sive cursus
theologiae juxta mentem Divi Thomae (Paris: LeCoffre, 1904), V, 171 f.
17 Cf, Perrone’s Tractatus de locis theologicis, pars I, c. 2, in his Praelec-
tiones theologicae in compendium redactae (Paris, 1861), I, 135.
18 Cf, Palmieri’s Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cuм prolegomeno de
ecclesia (Prado, 1891), pp. 416 ff.
19 Cf. Schultes’ De ecclesia catholica praelectiones apologeticae (Paris:
Lethielleux, 1931), pp. 450 ff.
20 Cf. Franzelin’s Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887), pp. 210 ff.;
Felder’s Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis (Paderborn: Schoeningh,
1923), II, 120 f.; and D’Herbigny’s Theoloyia de ecclesia (Paris: Beau-
chesne, 1927), II, 213 ff.
i
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME 459
was unquestionably capable of definition. It is interesting to
note that Gerard Paris wrote that more probably the primacy
over the universal Church was joined to the episcopate of Rome
ture divino, saltem indirecto.** The possibility of such an indirect
divine mandate has not been generally considered in the recent
literature of scholastic ecclesiology.
An overwhelming majority of theologians since the Vatican
Council has upheld the thesis that, in one way or another, the
primacy is permanently attached to the local Church of Rome
ture divino. Within this majority we find such outstanding ecclesi-
ologists as Cardinal Camillus Mazzella, Bonal, Tepe, Crosta, De
Groot, Hurter, Dorsch, Manzoni, Bainvel, Tanquerey, Hervé,
Michelitsch, Van Noort, and Lercher.** Despite the preponderance
of testimony in favor of this thesis, however, Saiz Ruiz and Cal-
cagno reject the theological arguments usually adduced in its
favor, while Dieckmann refers to the question as subject to con-
21 Cf. Billot’s Tractatus de ecclesia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: Gregorian
University, 1927), I, 613 f.
22. Cf. Paris’ Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Turin: Marietti, 1929), pp.
23 Cf. Card. Mazzella’s De religitone et ecclesia praelectiones scholastico-
dogmaticae, 6th edition (Prado, 1905), pp. 731 ff.; Bonal’s IJnstitutiones
theologiae ad usum seminariorum, 16th edition (Toulouse, 1887), I, 422 ff.;
Tepe’s Institutiones theologicae in usum scholarum (Paris: Lethielleux,
1894), I, 307 f.; Crosta’s Theologia dogmatica in usum scholarum, 3rd edi-
tion (Gallarate: Lazzati, 1932), I, 309 ff.; De Groot’s Summa apologetica de
ecclesia catholica, 3rd edition (Regensburg, 1906), pp. 575 ff.; Hurter’s
Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 2nd edition (Innsbruck, 1878), I, 332;
Dorsch’s Institutiones theologiae fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Innsbruck:
Rauch, 1928), II, 229; Manzoni’s Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th
edition (Turin: Berruti, 1928), I, 263; Bainvel’s De ecclesia Christi (Paris:
3eauchesne, 1925), p. 201; Tanquerey’s Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fun-
damentalis, 24th edition (Paris: Desclée, 1937), p. 492; Hervé’s Manuale
theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition (Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1934), I, 401;
Michelitsch’s Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae fundamentalis, 3rd edi-
tion (Vienna: Styria, 1925), p. 378; Van Noort’s Tractatus de ecclesia
Christi, 5th edition (Hilversum, Holland: Brand, 1932), p. 188; and Lercher’s
Institutiones theologiae dogmaticac, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1934),
I, 378 ff.
460 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW
troversy.*4 Granderath makes it evident that the Vatican Council
had no intention of condemning Dominic Soto’s teaching in its
Constitution Pastor aeternus.”®
As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with
the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common
Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of
the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded
by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and inde-
fectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is
charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal
Church militant as Christ’s vicar on earth is necessarily the head
of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that
the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to
continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could
not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church
over which he could rule by divine authority.
The thesis on the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome has
received rather considerable development in the literature of scho-
lastic ecclesiology. Saiz Ruiz is of the opinion that, if the city of
Rome were destroyed, it would be sufficient to have the Sovereign
Pontiffs retain the title of Bishop of Rome “‘sicut hodie episcopi in
partibus.”*®> The terminology of most of the other modern and
classical theologians who have dealt wtih this question, however,
involves a rejection of this contention. The bishops in partibus
infidelium, properly called titular bishops since Pope Leo XIII
decreed this change in terminology in his apostolic letter Jn
supremo, of June 10, 1882, have no jurisdiction whatever over
the Catholics of the locality where their ancient churches were
situated. No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholas-
24Cf. Saiz Ruiz, Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis (Burgos,
1906), pp. 430 ff.; Calcagno, Theologia fundamentalis (Naples: D’Auria,
1948), pp. 229 f.; and Dieckmann, De ecclesia tractatus historico-dogmatici
(Freiburg-im-Breisgau: Herder, 1925), I, 437 f.
25 Cf. Granderath, Constitutiones dogmaticae sacrosancti oecuмenici Con-
cilii Vaticani ex ipsis cius actis explicatae atque illustratae (Freiburg-im-
Breisgau: Herder, 1892), pp. 137 ff. Although Soto’s teaching has not been
condemned, the doctrine according to which the primacy could be taken away
from Rome by the action of a general council or of the populace as a whole
was proscribed by Pius IX in his Syllabus of errors. Cf. DB. 1735.
26 Cf. Saiz Ruiz, op. cit., p. 433.
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME 461
tic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the
visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had par-
ticular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City.
Although some theologians, like Suarez and, in our own time
Mazzella and Manzoni, hold it as probable that the material city
of Rome will be protected by God’s providence and will never be
completely destroyed,”* most of the others hold that this destruc-
tion is a possibility. They maintain, however, that the destruction
of the buildings and even the complete uninhabitability of the
city itself would in no way necessitate the destruction of the Roman
local Church. Older writers like St. Robert Bellarmine were con-
vinced that at one time the actual city of Rome was entirely with-
out inhabitants, while the local Church, with its clergy and its
bishop, continued to live.*8
From time to time heretics have pointed to the seventeenth
and the eighteenth chapters of the Apocalypse as indication that
ultimately there would be no followers of Christ within the city
of Rome. St. Robert admitted such a possibility at the end of the
world, but pointed out the traditional interpretation of this section
of the Apocalypse, particularly that popularized by St. Augustine,
had nothing to do with the Roman Church during the period im-
mediately preceding the general judgment.*® Francis Sylvius
demonstrated that any application of this section of the Apocalypse
to the Roman Church was merely fanciful.*° Modern theologians,
Franzelin and Crosta in particular, have followed this procedure.*4
Another highly important and sometimes overlooked preroga-
tive of the local Roman Church is its infallibility. By reason of its
peculiar place in the universal Church militant, this individual
congregation has always been and will always be protected from
corporate heresy by God’s providential power. The local Church
of Rome, with its bishop, its presbyterium, its clergy and its laity
27 Cf. Suarez, op. cit., p. 198; Mazzella, op. cit., p. 738; Manzoni, op. cit.,
p. 264.
28 Cf. St. Robert, of. cit., col. 813.
29 Cf. ibid., col. 814 .
30 Cf. Sylvius, op. cit., q. 1, a. 4, conclusio 3, p. 291.
31 Cf. Franzelin, of. cit., pp. 213 f.; Crosta, of. cit., p. 312, quotes Franzelin
on this question. It is interesting to note that the doctrines of these scholastics
coincide with the teachings of the exegete Allo on this subject. Cf. his Saint
Jean: L’Apocalypse, 3rd edition (Paris: Gabalda, 1933), pp. 264 ff.
|
462 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW
will exist until the end of time secure in the purity of its faith.
St. Cyprian alluded to this charism when he spoke of the Catholic
Romans as those “ad quos perfidia habere non potest accessum.’’**
This infallibility, not only of the Roman Pontiff, but also of
the local Church of Rome, was a central theme in the ecclesiology
of some of the greatest counter-Reformation theologians. Cardinal
Hosius proposed this thesis in his polemic against Brentius.**
John Driedo developed it magnificently.** St. Robert explained
this teaching by saying that the Roman clergy and the Roman
laity, as a corporate unit, could never fall away from the faith.*®
The Roman Church, as an individual local institution, can never
fall away from the faith. Manifestly the same guarantee is given
to no other local Church.
It is interesting to note that during the prolonged vacancy of
the Roman See the presbyters and the deacons of Rome wrote
to St. Cyprian in such a way as to manifest their conviction that
the faith of their own local Church, even during this interregnum,
constituted a norm to which the faith of other local Churches was
meant to conform.3¢ The Roman Church could not possibly be
the one with which all the other local congregations of Christen-
dom must agree were it not endowed with a special infallibility.
In order to be effective that infallibility must be acknowledged in
a very practical manner by the other local units of the Church
militant throughout the world.
Actually the infallibility of the Roman Church is much more
than a mere theological opinion. The proposition that “the Church
of the city of Rome can fall into error” is one of the theses of
Peter de Osma, formally condemned by Pope Sixtus IV as errone-
ous and as containing manifest heresy.**
Since it is true that the local Church of Rome is infallible in its
faith, and that the Holy Father is the only authoritative teacher of
the local Church of Rome, it follows that he teaches infallibly
32 Ep. 59, in CSEL, 3, 2, 683.
33 Cf. Hosius, Confutatio prolegomenon Brentii (Lyons, 1564), pp. 170 ff.
34 Cf. Driedo, De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus (Louvain, 1530),
lib. 4, c. 3, pp. 549 ff.
35 Cf. St. Robert, op. cit., col. 812.
36 This letter is listed among the epistles of St. Cyprian, n. 30.
37 Cf. DB, 730.
2
THE LOCAL CHURCH OF ROME 463
when he definitely settles a question about faith or morals so as to
fix or determine the belief of that local Church. Since the local
Church of Rome is an effective standard for all the other local
Churches, and for the universal kingdom of God on earth, in
matters of belief, the Holy Father must be considered as addressing
the entire Church militant, at least indirectly, when he speaks
directly and definitively to the local congregation of the Eternal
City. Thus it is perfectly possible to have a definition of the type
described in the Vatican Council’s Constitution Pastor aeternus,
one in which the Holy Father speaks ex cathedra, “exercising his
function as the pastor and the teacher of all Christians” and so
“according to his supreme apostolic authority defines a doctrine
about faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,’’’® pre-
cisely when he speaks to determine the faith of the local Church
of Rome.
It is a matter of manifest Catholic doctrine that the episcopate
of the local Church of Rome and the visible primacy of jurisdiction
over the universal Church militant are not actually two episcopates,
but constitute only one episcopal function. Today, unfortunately,
we are prone to imagine that the headship of the Christian com-
munity in the city on the Tiber is something hardly more than
incidental to the Sovereign Pontificate. Indicative of this tendency
is the declaration of a recent and well-written book about the Holy
Year, a statement to the effect that “One of the Holy Father’s titles
is Bishop of Rome.’’%®
Such a statement is not erroneous, but it might well be con-
sidered somewhat misleading. “Bishop of Rome” is not merely
one of the titles of the Holy Father, it is actually the name of the
office which constitutes him as St. Peter’s successor and as the
Vicar of Christ on earth. And, when the same volume speaks
of “the return of the Apostolic See to Rome,”*? with reference to
the end of the residence of the Popes in Avignon, it is using a
definitely bad terminology. The Apostolic See, the cathedra Petri,
never left the Eternal City. The men who ruled the Church from
Avignon were just as truly the Bishops of Rome as any others
38 DB, 1839.
39 Cf, Fenichell and Andrews, The Vatican and Holy Year (New York:
Halcyon House, 1950), p. 89.
49 Thid., p. 4.
464 THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW
among the successors of St. Peter. It is precisely by reason of
the inseparable residence within it of the Cathedra Petri that the
local Church of Rome possesses its extraordinary privileges and
charisms within the Church militant.
JosEPpH CLIFFORD FENTON
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.
.
What exactly is the order being referred to? I'm really unclear on this. There are two statements in the text that could be described as being an order, and they are:
and
So if Rome doesn't convert after the publication of this order (within 69 weeks of the publication), the city will be destroyed.
Is this a translation problem? Can the word being used as "order" simply mean a message from someone in authority, and thus refer to the secret as a whole?
The bolded part below contains "the order":
Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
So "the order" is that the contents of the letter must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.
And the reason that the timing is so important is that the "69 weeks" starts with the Feast of Weeks in 1959.
"And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird." (Apoc. 18:2).
I agree with the timeline as given by Lad, as it seems that everything points toward 2028-30; my point is, what the bishops have allowed to happen to the Church is a sin more grave, more heinous, than even the sin of the Jєωs, when the Sanhedrin put Christ to death. So why shouldn't Rome be utterly destroyed? If the above quote refers to Rome, then absolutely Rome will be destroyed. Verse 10 says, "For in one hour is thy judgment come." This Babylon could be "Jerusalem," but there are some prophecies which suggest that the last pope Peter will move his See from Rome to Jerusalem.
As a consequence of this inseparable union of the primacy with
the episcopate of Rome, scholastic theology points to the common
Catholic teaching that the local Church of Rome, the faithful of
the Eternal City presided over by their Bishop who is surrounded
by his own priests and other clerics, as an infallible and inde-
fectible institution. If, until the end of time, the man who is
charged with the responsibility of presiding over the universal
Church militant as Christ’s vicar on earth is necessarily the head
of the local Church in Rome, then it follows quite obviously that
the local Church of the Eternal City must be destined by God to
continue to live as long as the Church militant itself. A man could
not be Bishop of Rome unless there were a definite Roman Church
over which he could rule by divine authority.
The thesis on the indefectibility of the local Church of Rome has
received rather considerable development in the literature of scho-
lastic ecclesiology. Saiz Ruiz is of the opinion that, if the city of
Rome were destroyed, it would be sufficient to have the Sovereign
Pontiffs retain the title of Bishop of Rome “‘sicut hodie episcopi in
partibus.”*®> The terminology of most of the other modern and
classical theologians who have dealt with this question, however,
involves a rejection of this contention. The bishops in partibus
infidelium, properly called titular bishops since Pope Leo XIII
decreed this change in terminology in his apostolic letter Jn
supremo, of June 10, 1882, have no jurisdiction whatever over
the Catholics of the locality where their ancient churches were
situated. No man, according to the prevailing teaching of scholas-
tic theology, could be the successor of St. Peter and thus the
visible head of the universal Church militant unless he had par-
ticular episcopal authority over the Christians of the Eternal City.
Although some theologians, like Suarez and, in our own time
Mazzella and Manzoni, hold it as probable that the material city
of Rome will be protected by God’s providence and will never be
completely destroyed,”* most of the others hold that this destruc-
tion is a possibility. They maintain, however, that the destruction
of the buildings and even the complete uninhabitability of the
city itself would in no way necessitate the destruction of the Roman
local Church. Older writers like St. Robert Bellarmine were con-
vinced that at one time the actual city of Rome was entirely with-
out inhabitants, while the local Church, with its clergy and its
bishop, continued to live.*8
From time to time heretics have pointed [oops, this is your theory, Brownson! :laugh1:] to the seventeenth
and the eighteenth chapters of the Apocalypse as indication that
ultimately there would be no followers of Christ within the city
of Rome. St. Robert admitted such a possibility at the end of the
world, but pointed out the traditional interpretation of this section
of the Apocalypse, particularly that popularized by St. Augustine,
had nothing to do with the Roman Church during the period im-
mediately preceding the general judgment.*® Francis Sylvius
demonstrated that any application of this section of the Apocalypse
to the Roman Church was merely fanciful.*° Modern theologians,
Franzelin and Crosta in particular, have followed this procedure.
"And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird." (Apoc. 18:2)
I agree with the timeline as given by Lad, as it seems that everything points toward 2028-30; my point is, what the bishops have allowed to happen to the Church is a sin more grave, more heinous, than even the sin of the Jews, when the Sanhedrin put Christ to death. So why shouldn't Rome be utterly destroyed? If the above quote refers to Rome, then absolutely Rome will be destroyed. Verse 10 says, "For in one hour is thy judgment come." This Babylon could be "Jerusalem," but there are some prophecies which suggest that the last pope Peter will move his See from Rome to Jerusalem.
.
This is from the article that Emile generously provided (thanks, Emile!)
Okay, so the subject is a bit complex and the theory is not as unanimous as I thought, although it sounds like most theologians think there must always be a Rome for the pope to be bishop of. I think that's the point.
All signs point to Roncalli et al. But this phrase is a bit curious. I got the impression it means that a Pope could in fact release the Secret at any time, but that, once Pius XII died, it should be released directly by Sister Lucia before 1960.
Speaking of the 70 years after 1960...here is a prophecy from Nostradamus, translated by Yves Dupont:I suppose this is all tied in to banks making their own blockchains that will be able to connect to each other and to public chains, similar to how computers connect using TCP/IP. (After all people don't stay on their own intranets)
Under the sign of Libra, America shall reign, (Libra = Statue of Liberty)
Shall hold power in the sky and on land, (Military supremacy starting post WW2, with Pope Pius XII)
Shall never perish under Asian forces,
Until seven Pontificates have passed. (7 popes = Pius XII --> Francis' death)
Some call modern America the 'whore of Babylon'. I can't say I disagree. So with the death/resignation of Francis, (which could happen anytime), America will no longer be the world's superpower. All the signs are there that America's rule (both militarily and financially) is at an end.
Doesn't mean we'll crash into a 3rd world nation overnight, but with the rise of BRICS nations, and the slow decay of our military, the signs point to Russia/China to rule the world...until Our Lady intervenes and Catholic Europe resurrects the power of the Holy Roman Empire.
Interesting times.
Some call modern America the 'whore of Babylon'. I can't say I disagree.
I'm not seeing it. St. Peter himself referred to Rome as Babylon (in one of his Epistles), and the Whore of Babylon is undoubtedly the Conciliar Church. I doubt the Book of Revelation would be particularly focused on the United States.Ahhh. Yes, then the conciliar church fits the bill.
Whore is arrayed in purple and scarlet (bishops and cardinals) and drunk on the blood of the martyrs.
Yeti, you get it that Rome will be the See of the Universal Church until "the end of time/the age." Yes, that is correct.
But, the Fatima Third Secret is referring to "the end of time/the age" precisely when "Rome" (which has morphed into Babylon, the earthly city, the false Church) will be destroyed. Then there will be "a New Heaven and a New Earth." That is what we are coming up to very shortly.
1 Peter 4:12-19
12 Dearly beloved, think not strange the burning heat which is to try you, as if some new thing happened to you; 13 But if you partake of the sufferings of Christ, rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding joy. 14 If you be reproached for the name of Christ, you shall be blessed: for that which is of the honour, glory, and power of God, and that which is his Spirit, resteth upon you. 15 But let none of you suffer as a murderer, or a thief, or a railer, or a coveter of other men's things.16 But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name. 17 For the time is, that judgment should begin at the house of God. And if first at us, what shall be the end of them that believe not the gospel of God? 18 And if the just man shall scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? 19 Wherefore let them also that suffer according to the will of God, commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator.
Ecclesiastes 1:9-10
9 What is it that hath been? the same thing that shall be. What is it that hath been done? the same that shall be done. 10 Nothing under the sun is new, neither is any man able to say: Behold this is new: for it hath already gone before in the ages that were before us
Romans 15:4
4 For what things soever were written, were written for our learning: that through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope
1 Corinthians 10:6-11
6 Now these things were done in a figure of us, that we should not covet evil things as they also coveted. 7 Neither become ye idolaters, as some of them, as it is written: The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed fornication, and there fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ: as some of them tempted, and perished by the serpents. 10 Neither do you murmur: as some of them murmured, and were destroyed by the destroyer. 11 Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come.
Romans 11:17-21
17 And if some of the branches be broken, and thou, being a wild olive, art ingrafted in them, and art made partaker of the root, and of the fatness of the olive tree, 18 Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not the root, but the root thee. 19 Thou wilt say then: The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in. 20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But thou standest by faith: be not highminded, but fear. 21 For if God hath not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps he also spare not thee. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards thee, the goodness of God, if thou abide in goodness, otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Many good quotes in this article discussing the nature of the Apostasy.Wow! Great to have all of these together. Thank you.
https://padreperegrino.org/2023/09/mtsolf/
What is the Third Secret of Fatima?
What is the Third Secret of Fatima? The full Third Secret has not been released by the Vatican, but even many moderate Catholics today know it’s more than the shooting of Pope John Paul II or a LARPing tale of future-crossbows on a Vatican hill. Last week, I blogged here (https://www.padreperegrino.org/2023/09/infjes/) on Malachi Martin regarding the Jesuits, so I decided to quote him on Fatima today, too. Although I have seen Martin’s quotes in more places than one, they are nicely compiled in one spot by Gloria TV (https://gloria.tv/post/67o3wnwTHttzEpdFR8MAeeBQJ). So, I simply reproduce their article here:
Father Malachi Martin (reader of the Third Secret of Fatima) Interview with Bernard Janzen 1992, The Kingdom of Darkness:
Janzen: In our discussion earlier you just touched on the subject of Satan’s assault on the papacy. Perhaps we could have a brief discussion about that.
Martin: […] what I think is fatally necessary for every Catholic to know, and that is the fate of the papacy and the coming stress and danger that we shall be without the strength of the papacy.
Bernard: Is it ever possible that the cardinals at a future conclave could elect a heretical pope?
Martin: [brief pause over the sensitive nature of the question] You know…they have elected men in the past who had heretical ideas. Two or three. They have never elected yet an apostate…an apostate. […] An apostate has rebelled against the very fundamental of faith and rejected God and Christ. We have apostates now who are papabili [men who could be elected pope]. Yes, we could have an apostate. But in that day, then we are into something terrible. We’re into something which, Bernard, is something that, if you think on it, in full knowledge of the meaning of your terms, is nightmarish. It would test the faith of St. Catherine of Sienna. It would test the faith of the greatest saint. It would try the patience of Job. It would be a black day; a day on which you can clothe every window in black and put out the lights and dress in sackcloth & ashes and pray that you’re spared because your faith is going to be battered to pieces…if that happens. ’cause then, they have the prize and everything goes underground. And we are indeed on our way to becoming what Paul VI, in his misery, called, in 1978, an infinitesimally small part of humanity. Completely marginalized and pushed to the side and forgotten as a quaint group of people as interesting as Tibetan astrologers on a modern campus.
———————————————————————-
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on May 4, 1998
Martin: The prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant docuмent to read – not pleasant news. It implies – it doesn’t make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress – a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church – that is, the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops and bishops and cardinals and the Roman bureaucracies and the chanceries throughout the world – unless that is totally disrupted and rendered null and void, the third secret makes no sense, and number two, the other salient characteristic about it is that it means intense suffering for believers.
———————————————————————–
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on July 13, 1998 (the very Anniversary of the Third Secret of Fatima)
Bell: Alright, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read. One from a friend in Australia, Father, who says, “I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the third secret of Fatima years ago in Perth. He said, among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest.” Any comment on that?
Martin: Yes…uh…it sounds as if they were reading – or being told – the text of the third secret.
Bell: Oh my.
Martin: It sounds like it. But it’s sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.
Bell: Father, is there any circuмstance under which you can imagine, that you would feel free to reveal the secret?
Martin: Yes. Yes. If there was a total collapse at the center.
Bell: And you anticipate that, don’t you?
Martin: I anticipate it as a possibility, Art. I can’t predict, but I anticipate it as a possibility, certainly, yes. I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------
“Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the “pope” who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a heretic and an antipope.” – Father Paul Kramer, Facebook quote, May of 2016
“We’re facing.. what we may have to face, finally.. the False Pope.” – Fr. Malachi Martin, Detroit, Michigan circa 1989? [November 1992?]
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” – Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (Personal Theologian to Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II) from a 1995 personal letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg, Austria; Father Gerard Mura, “The Third Secret of Fatima: Has It Been Completely Revealed?”, the periodical Catholic, (published by the Transalpine Redemptorists, Orkney Isles, Scotland, Great Britain) March 2002
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism.” “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” – Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, p. 88-90, p. 79
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who read the Third Secret, made reference to one of its themes during an allocution to the members of the Marian International Academy he declared, “It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…” – 15 December 1960 – Allocution de S. Em. Le cardinal Ottaviani à l’Académie Mariale Internationale, “Docuмentation Catholique,” 1961, col. 244
1963 – In a public admonition to his spiritual sons amidst the Second Vatican Council Padre Pio said: “Due to the rampant injustice and abuse of power, we have reached a compromise with atheistic materialism [Communism], a denial of the rights of God. This is the punishment foretold at Fatima … All the priests who support the possibility of a dialogue with the negators of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world [Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ] are mad, have lost their faith, no longer believe in the Gospel! In so doing they betray the word of God, because Christ came to bring on earth perpetual covenant only to men of heart [good will], but did not join with the men thirsty for power and dominion over the brothers … The flock is dispersed when the shepherds ally with the enemies of the Truth of Christ. All the forms of power made deaf to the will of the authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves that renew the passion of Christ and make the Madonna shed tears … ” – Published in “Avvenire” August 19, 1978; See also partial quote in “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” 2006 by Antonio Socci
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” – Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977 in a formal address marking the 60th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun as quoted in the Milan-based daily Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, p. 7 of its issue dated October 14, 1977
“The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church.” “I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself…If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking…” – Cardinal Silvio Oddi, to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato, Rome, March 17, 1990
“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. – Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Paragraph #675 – The Church’s ultimate trial
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” – Selected excerpt taken from Our Lady of La Salette’s Secret to Mélanie Calvatin on 19 September 1846. (Approved apparition) Final version published in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the imprimatur and approval of Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zola, C.R.L., the Bishop of Lecce
“I cannot reveal anything about what I have learned at Fatima about the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: the one concerns the Pope. The other, logically – although I should say nothing – should be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’” – Father Joseph Schweigl 1952 (Pope Pius XII sent him to interrogate Sr. Lucia on September 2, 1952); Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 710, p. 337-338
November 11, 1984 – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger affirmed that the Third Secret concerns, “a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’ (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: ‘for sensationalism’). But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions” – Ecco perche la fede e in crisi in the review, Jesus, p. 79
“I believe that there is a connection between that which is announced in the first part of the Secret, which concerns wars and sufferings which would be everywhere, and the second part which concerns the persecutions and a type of breakdown of the faith. Because where the ellipsis (the three dots, “…”) was placed, it means “Here is the third part, which is not revealed” and then the conclusion “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.” This suggests to me that there is a relationship between faith and the third part of the Secret. Therefore, it is something that relates to the Church. It is some kind of universal crisis which affects the whole Church and all of humanity.” – Father Jose dos Santos Valinho (nephew of Sr. Lucia); This public statement was made on the 14th of February, 2003 broadcast on the program ENIGMA, which was transmitted prime time, nationwide on RAI, the National TV Network of Italy, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 74, p.76
Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the need for a “Year of Faith” that seeks to awaken humanity at a critical moment. “In vast areas of the earth the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel,” the pope warned, “We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of a religious sense which represents one of the greatest challenges for the Church today … The renewal of faith must, then, be a priority for the entire Church in our time.” – Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican City, 27 January 2012 from his address to the participants in the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
———————————————————————-
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer. – Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250;
Many good quotes in this article discussing the nature of the Apostasy.
https://padreperegrino.org/2023/09/mtsolf/
What is the Third Secret of Fatima?
What is the Third Secret of Fatima? The full Third Secret has not been released by the Vatican, but even many moderate Catholics today know it’s more than the shooting of Pope John Paul II or a LARPing tale of future-crossbows on a Vatican hill. Last week, I blogged here (https://www.padreperegrino.org/2023/09/infjes/) on Malachi Martin regarding the Jesuits, so I decided to quote him on Fatima today, too. Although I have seen Martin’s quotes in more places than one, they are nicely compiled in one spot by Gloria TV (https://gloria.tv/post/67o3wnwTHttzEpdFR8MAeeBQJ). So, I simply reproduce their article here:
Father Malachi Martin (reader of the Third Secret of Fatima) Interview with Bernard Janzen 1992, The Kingdom of Darkness:
Janzen: In our discussion earlier you just touched on the subject of Satan’s assault on the papacy. Perhaps we could have a brief discussion about that.
Martin: […] what I think is fatally necessary for every Catholic to know, and that is the fate of the papacy and the coming stress and danger that we shall be without the strength of the papacy.
Bernard: Is it ever possible that the cardinals at a future conclave could elect a heretical pope?
Martin: [brief pause over the sensitive nature of the question] You know…they have elected men in the past who had heretical ideas. Two or three. They have never elected yet an apostate…an apostate. […] An apostate has rebelled against the very fundamental of faith and rejected God and Christ. We have apostates now who are papabili [men who could be elected pope]. Yes, we could have an apostate. But in that day, then we are into something terrible. We’re into something which, Bernard, is something that, if you think on it, in full knowledge of the meaning of your terms, is nightmarish. It would test the faith of St. Catherine of Sienna. It would test the faith of the greatest saint. It would try the patience of Job. It would be a black day; a day on which you can clothe every window in black and put out the lights and dress in sackcloth & ashes and pray that you’re spared because your faith is going to be battered to pieces…if that happens. ’cause then, they have the prize and everything goes underground. And we are indeed on our way to becoming what Paul VI, in his misery, called, in 1978, an infinitesimally small part of humanity. Completely marginalized and pushed to the side and forgotten as a quaint group of people as interesting as Tibetan astrologers on a modern campus.
———————————————————————-
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on May 4, 1998
Martin: The prophecy of Fatima is not a pleasant docuмent to read – not pleasant news. It implies – it doesn’t make any sense unless we accept that there will be, or that there is in progress – a wholesale apostasy amongst clerics and laity in the Catholic Church, that the institutional organization of the Roman Catholic Church – that is, the organization of parishes, dioceses, archbishops and bishops and cardinals and the Roman bureaucracies and the chanceries throughout the world – unless that is totally disrupted and rendered null and void, the third secret makes no sense, and number two, the other salient characteristic about it is that it means intense suffering for believers.
———————————————————————–
Father Malachi Martin Interview with Art Bell on July 13, 1998 (the very Anniversary of the Third Secret of Fatima)
Bell: Alright, here we go. Just a couple of things I want to quickly read. One from a friend in Australia, Father, who says, “I had a Jesuit priest tell me more of the third secret of Fatima years ago in Perth. He said, among other things, the last pope would be under control of Satan. Pope John fainted thinking it might be him. We were interrupted before I could hear the rest.” Any comment on that?
Martin: Yes…uh…it sounds as if they were reading – or being told – the text of the third secret.
Bell: Oh my.
Martin: It sounds like it. But it’s sufficiently vague to make one hesitate. It sounds like it.
Bell: Father, is there any circuмstance under which you can imagine, that you would feel free to reveal the secret?
Martin: Yes. Yes. If there was a total collapse at the center.
Bell: And you anticipate that, don’t you?
Martin: I anticipate it as a possibility, Art. I can’t predict, but I anticipate it as a possibility, certainly, yes. I do.
-----------------------------------------------------------
“Malachi personally confirmed to me in 1997 that the “pope” who will lead the apostasy in the Church will be a heretic and an antipope.” – Father Paul Kramer, Facebook quote, May of 2016
“We’re facing.. what we may have to face, finally.. the False Pope.” – Fr. Malachi Martin, Detroit, Michigan circa 1989? [November 1992?]
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” – Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (Personal Theologian to Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II) from a 1995 personal letter to Professor Baumgartner of Salzburg, Austria; Father Gerard Mura, “The Third Secret of Fatima: Has It Been Completely Revealed?”, the periodical Catholic, (published by the Transalpine Redemptorists, Orkney Isles, Scotland, Great Britain) March 2002
“The apostasy of the city of Rome from the vicar of Christ and its destruction by Antichrist may be thoughts so new to many Catholics, that I think it well to recite the text of theologians of greatest repute. First Malvenda, who writes expressly on the subject, states as the opinion of Ribera, Gaspar Melus, Biegas, Suarrez, Bellarmine and Bosius that Rome shall apostatise from the faith, drive away the Vicar of Christ and return to its ancient paganism.” “Then the Church shall be scattered, driven into the wilderness, and shall be for a time, as it was in the beginning, invisible hidden in catacombs, in dens, in mountains, in lurking places; for a time it shall be swept, as it were from the face of the earth. Such is the universal testimony of the Fathers of the early Church.” – Cardinal Henry Edward Manning, The Present Crisis of the Holy See, 1861, London: Burns and Lambert, p. 88-90, p. 79
Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, who read the Third Secret, made reference to one of its themes during an allocution to the members of the Marian International Academy he declared, “It suffices to cast a rapid glance at what is happening at this moment in the world, in order to recognize that without the intervention of the Mother of all mercy near the All-Powerful, the world risks becoming pagan once more, a paganism more deplorable than the first paganism, because it is aggravated by apostasy. We are witnessing a veritable deluge of sins, a deluge which leaves behind it a nauseating quagmire, infected by immorality, lies and blasphemy…” – 15 December 1960 – Allocution de S. Em. Le cardinal Ottaviani à l’Académie Mariale Internationale, “Docuмentation Catholique,” 1961, col. 244
1963 – In a public admonition to his spiritual sons amidst the Second Vatican Council Padre Pio said: “Due to the rampant injustice and abuse of power, we have reached a compromise with atheistic materialism [Communism], a denial of the rights of God. This is the punishment foretold at Fatima … All the priests who support the possibility of a dialogue with the negators of God and with the Luciferian powers of the world [Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ] are mad, have lost their faith, no longer believe in the Gospel! In so doing they betray the word of God, because Christ came to bring on earth perpetual covenant only to men of heart [good will], but did not join with the men thirsty for power and dominion over the brothers … The flock is dispersed when the shepherds ally with the enemies of the Truth of Christ. All the forms of power made deaf to the will of the authority of the heart of God are rapacious wolves that renew the passion of Christ and make the Madonna shed tears … ” – Published in “Avvenire” August 19, 1978; See also partial quote in “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” 2006 by Antonio Socci
“The tail of the devil is functioning in the disintegration of the Catholic world. The darkness of Satan has entered and spread throughout the Catholic Church even to its summit. Apostasy, the loss of the faith, is spreading throughout the world and into the highest levels within the Church.” – Pope Paul VI, October 13, 1977 in a formal address marking the 60th Anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun as quoted in the Milan-based daily Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, p. 7 of its issue dated October 14, 1977
“The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church.” “I would not be surprised if the Third Secret alluded to dark times for the Church: grave confusions and troubling apostasies within Catholicism itself…If we consider the grave crisis we have lived through since the Council, the signs that this prophecy has been fulfilled do not seem to be lacking…” – Cardinal Silvio Oddi, to Italian journalist Lucio Brunelli in the journal Il Sabato, Rome, March 17, 1990
“Before Christ’s second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the “mystery of iniquity” in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. – Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), Paragraph #675 – The Church’s ultimate trial
“Rome will lose the faith and become the seat of Antichrist.” – Selected excerpt taken from Our Lady of La Salette’s Secret to Mélanie Calvatin on 19 September 1846. (Approved apparition) Final version published in 1879 at Lecce, Italy, with the imprimatur and approval of Bishop Salvatore Luigi Zola, C.R.L., the Bishop of Lecce
“I cannot reveal anything about what I have learned at Fatima about the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: the one concerns the Pope. The other, logically – although I should say nothing – should be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’” – Father Joseph Schweigl 1952 (Pope Pius XII sent him to interrogate Sr. Lucia on September 2, 1952); Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 710, p. 337-338
November 11, 1984 – Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger affirmed that the Third Secret concerns, “a radical call for conversion; the absolute importance of history; the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore of the world. And then the importance of the ‘novissimi’ (the last events at the end of time). If it is not made public — at least for the time being — it is in order to prevent religious prophecy from being mistaken for a quest for the sensational (literally: ‘for sensationalism’). But the things contained in this ‘Third Secret’ correspond to what has been announced in Scripture and has been said again and again in many other Marian apparitions” – Ecco perche la fede e in crisi in the review, Jesus, p. 79
“I believe that there is a connection between that which is announced in the first part of the Secret, which concerns wars and sufferings which would be everywhere, and the second part which concerns the persecutions and a type of breakdown of the faith. Because where the ellipsis (the three dots, “…”) was placed, it means “Here is the third part, which is not revealed” and then the conclusion “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.” This suggests to me that there is a relationship between faith and the third part of the Secret. Therefore, it is something that relates to the Church. It is some kind of universal crisis which affects the whole Church and all of humanity.” – Father Jose dos Santos Valinho (nephew of Sr. Lucia); This public statement was made on the 14th of February, 2003 broadcast on the program ENIGMA, which was transmitted prime time, nationwide on RAI, the National TV Network of Italy, The Fatima Crusader, Issue 74, p.76
Pope Benedict XVI proclaimed the need for a “Year of Faith” that seeks to awaken humanity at a critical moment. “In vast areas of the earth the faith risks being extinguished, like a flame without fuel,” the pope warned, “We are facing a profound crisis of faith, a loss of a religious sense which represents one of the greatest challenges for the Church today … The renewal of faith must, then, be a priority for the entire Church in our time.” – Pope Benedict XVI, Vatican City, 27 January 2012 from his address to the participants in the plenary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
———————————————————————-
Act bravely, my Brethren; take courage, and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase.
The devils will have unusual power, the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who will obey the true Sovereign Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal hearts and perfect charity. At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death.
Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.
There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God.
Then our Rule and manner of life will be violently opposed by some, and terrible trials will come upon us. Those who are found faithful will receive the crown of life; but woe to those who, trusting solely in their Order, shall fall into tepidity, for they will not be able to support the temptations permitted for the proving of the elect.
Those who preserve their fervour and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and, persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth. But the Lord will be the refuge of the afflicted, and will save all who trust in Him. And in order to be like their Head [Jesus Christ], these, the elect, will act with confidence, and by their death will purchase for themselves eternal life; choosing to obey God rather than man, they will fear nothing, and they will prefer to perish [physically] rather than consent to falsehood and perfidy.
Some preachers will keep silence about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Jesus Christ will send them not a true Pastor, but a destroyer. – Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis Of Assisi [London: R. Washbourne, 1882], pp. 248-250;
When I read these replies,I find one thing very strange, not mentioned. I don't read anything about the Precious Blood! Now why is that!! I read and have all the paperback volumes of Fr. Michael De.... I also read books by Fr. Paul Trinchard. Now he may have been new order a long time ago, but he came out of it, being independent, but he did mention many times, that the messages of Fatima and Our Lady's appearances many times before, "She wanted a Church built". Fr. T. said, She wants her Son's Blood, the True Sacrament of the Mass. That is what She wants.
IMO as we see in Chapter 12 of Daniel, the Continual Blood, Sacrifice will end/suspended. Now I can not see anything more important!! How could this be overlooked for those looking for the 3rd Secret. We can not imagine what earth will be without the Precious Blood. Cardinal Manning and others did say the Faith will be ripped apart! Deposits of Faith, where? in the Mass.
I am convinced that someone, clergy, and who, did not mention anything about the Precious Blood when asked about the 3rd secret. This is no secret!! But now I have to wonder more, why, just why, is the loss of this Precious Blood not mentioned. (continual, on the earth) I think it was Padre Pio that stated, " It would be better for the Sun to be removed, than the Precious Blood removed." And what happened at Fatima, the Sun came spinning to earth.
27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many, in one week: and in the half of the week the victim and the sacrifice shall fail: and there shall be in the temple the abomination of desolation: and the desolation shall continue even to the consummation, and to the end.
Chojnowski has a lot of plausible arguments against the authenticity of this text (https://radtradthomist.chojnowski.me/2019/07/why-i-did-not-submit-tradition-in.html).
I really enjoyed this fascinating discussion when we had it two years ago. I'll have to read over this thread again when I have a chance.
I agree that the handwriting match with Sr. Lucy is very interesting. From what I could find out on the internet, it seems like it's possible for a forger to copy handwriting well enough to fool a handwriting expert if he is extremely skilled. So there are two possibilities here: 1) Sr. Lucy wrote it, or 2) an extremely skilled forger wrote it.
I think Guimaraes had a theory that the Vatican hired an extremely skilled forger to produce this docuмent. I forget how he explained the motive for that; it was a bit complex.
In any case, I think that's more likely than that this text is authentic.
I hadn't really thought about this text all that much since we hashed all this out a year and a half ago, and I was thinking about it again today after such a long time.
One thing that comes to mind is that there is practically nothing in this text that would be of any use or even relevance to anyone trying to survive the Vatican 2 crisis in the Church. Imagine you could see the future and you wanted to compose a couple-hundred-word statement to help people get through it with their faith intact. You would probably not come up with anything even remotely resembling this text.
Let's see. It mentions nothing about a council or a new order of Mass. It does mention an evil pope, but in such vague, bizarre terms that it is nearly useless. All it says is that he has a "gaze of evil". What in the world does that even mean? How would anyone recognize this? Then it says he goes into an ugly church. That's it? What good is that? And Our Lady (supposedly) then has the gall to say "You saw the apostasy in the Church" after not having shown anyone anything of such a nature at all? All they saw was a pope with a "gaze of evil" who goes into a church that looks like a concrete bunker. This is not what apostasy in the Church looks like.
The second half of the message is even more absurd, i.e. the part about Fatima, and how the headquarters of the Church will be moved from Rome to Fatima, and Rome will be destroyed. What on earth would be the point of moving the geographic location of the Church's capital, anyway? What problem is that going to solve?
But then it talks about how the tomb of St. Peter has to be moved to Fatima? Really? Remember, again, that this is a couple-hundred-word message to help souls in the worst crisis the Church has ever seen. And Our Lady is worried about moving the tomb of St. Peter to some other location? If a true pope took office today, the idea of moving St. Peter's tomb to another country would probably not make the top 3,000 items on his to-do list, assuming it made it at all, which obviously it wouldn't.
It is telling that a significant amount of the text, about a third of it, is about how Rome must be transferred to Fatima. Guimaraes thought maybe that points to someone in Fatima being behind the forgery, as it exalts Fatima as the most important place in the world. And it says that the "cathedral of Rome" must be destroyed. (It's also a little weird that Our Lady would call for a church to be destroyed anyway, now that I think about it.) But the cathedral of Rome is not the same place as St. Peter's tomb anyway (okay, not that it says it is, but it's kind of implied). The cathedral of Rome is St. John Lateran's basilica; whereas St. Peter is buried at St. Peter's Basilica.
Last of all we have the (apparently idle, since it didn't happen) threat that Rome would be destroyed within a certain deadline after an unspecified "order" is published. This is where it truly gets weird. A deadline for an enormous divine punishment is specified, and we can't even figure out what the deadline actually is. It says Rome will be destroyed if it doesn't repent within "69 weeks" of the publishing of some order, and we can't even figure out if that means "69 weeks", "69 years", or "69 7-year periods". All three theories have pros and cons, and none of them really fits entirely. How could God give a deadline that no one can even figure out when it is, especially for a chastisement like that? When Jonas was sent by God to Nineve with a deadline for the Ninevites, the deadline was clear: it was 40 days for them to repent, or the city would be destroyed. And the Ninevites understood when the deadline was, and so did Jonas. There was no question about what it meant. But it would be absurd if God had destroyed the city a few days later and then said, "When I said '40 days', I really meant '40 hours', and you guys just ran out of time." That would be completely unjust, and God would never do such a thing. So if God were to give a warning that included a threat and a deadline for the threat to take effect, there would be no question when the deadline was.
I'll dig up a bit more information on forgeries and whether they can fool handwriting experts, since that seems to be your main argument at the moment, but this is what I have for now.
10 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=10-#x)And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?11 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=11-#x)Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given. 12 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=12-#x)For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath. 13 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=13-#x)Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. 14 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=14-#x)And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive. 15 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=15-#x)For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.16 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=16-#x)But blessed are your eyes, because they see, and your ears, because they hear. 17 (https://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=13&l=17-#x)For, amen, I say to you, many prophets and just men have desired to see the things that you see, and have not seen them, and to hear the things that you hear and have not heard them.
Angelus is saying that 69 weeks should be 69 years. 1960 + 69 = 2029. The year 2029 is 100 yrs since Our Lady requested Fatima consecration. The satanic elites have “Agenda 2030” for their NWO. Coincidence? Can’t be.Wow, that's crazy !
Wow, that's crazy !
Yes, the 100 years began in 1929, as Pax Vobis said.
Yes, and I believe June 13, 1929. It was 100 years to the day with the requested consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus that the King of France was deposed. Our Lord likened the delay for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart to that same delay ... so I fully expect something terrible to begin unfolding on June 13, 2029.Does the triumph of the Church is the return of Our Lord?
Leo XIII's 75 years (from the vision) I believe started in 1958, with the Anti-Pope Roncalli kicking off the Conciliar Revolution. That would finish in 2033.
So ... something kicks off on June 13, 2029 that ultimately ends with the Triumph of the Church 3.5 or so years later. That also coincides almost perfectly with exactly 2000 years after the Public Ministry of Our Lord, where His Public Ministry would have begun somewhere in A.D. 29 and ended with His Crucifixion and Resurrection in A.D. 33.
| The articles originally appearing on this site may be reproduced freely, both in electronic and paper format, provided that nothing is changed, that the source is specified - the Kelebek website http://www.kelebekler.com (http://www.kelebekler.com) - and that also publish this clarification. For articles taken from other sources, consult the respective sites or authors |
Consider the source. Let's not forget that the head of TIA, Atila Sinke Guimarães, has never denied being a worshipper of layman (not a doctor) Mr. Plinio Márcio.
Are you still at this nonsense? NOBODY "worships" Plinio. This has been debunked 100 times and in a 100 different ways, but you persist in it, to the point that it cannot be excused as anything other than willful slander.Never debunked. Atila has never denied his worship of Plinio and his deceased mother.
Consider the source. Let's not forget that the head of TIA, Atila Sinke Guimarães, has never denied being a worshipper of layman (not a doctor) Mr. Plinio Márcio. He was/is slave # 11, who lay on his face before Mr. Plinio and said a public confession to this layman who they worshipped, along with worshipping Plinio's deceased mother with a litany. Nor has Atila has never denied praying to Mr. Plinio this prayer I am not the one who lives but it is My Lord ( Dr. Pliny) that lives in me. From him all graces come for me, his spirit dwells in me. Nor has Atila, head of TIA ever denied saying this mockery of the Ave Maria:
"Hail, Luigi Plinio Elia ( official name of Doctor Pliny in Sacred Slavery ), full of love and hate, the Most Holy Virgin is with you you are blessed among the faithful, and the fruit of your love and your hate, which is the Counter-ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, is blessed. O Sacral Luigi Plinio Elia, admirable and most Catholic father of the Counter-ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and the Kingdom of Mary, pray for us lame (capen gas) and sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen "
See this docuмent:
The following article is taken from La Tradizione Cattolica , new series, Year IX, n. 38-1998, reproducing the deposition of the TFP affiliate Luiz Filipe de Freitas Guimaraes Abias, Curitiba, 24 August 1984.
The statement was registered in the Public Archives (August 24, 1984) and published on March 14, 1985 by "Folha da Manha"; Campos, RJ, Brazil.
I, the undersigned, Filipe de Freitas Guimarães Ablas, RG (General Register) 3,706,587, SP, unmarried, resident in Curitiba (Brazil), C.so Manoel Ribas, no. 418, I declare to be true that, when I belonged to the TFP, Brazilian Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family and Property, in 1967 I entered a secret society of that association, called "Sacra Slavitù", also known by its members as "Always Living ".
The members of this secret society have made a consecration of themselves as slaves of Doctor Atila Sinke Guimarães - slave Plinio Márcio. in the same sense that St. Louis Grignion de Montfort recommended doing it to Our Lady. For this consecration as a slave to Doctor Pliny the same text established by St. Louis for the consecration to the Madonna was used, with some adaptations. We proceeded in this way because Doctor Pliny was considered to have the same spirit of the Madonna since he was one with the Immaculate and Wisdom Heart of Mary. The members of the said society prayed daily using the following prayer of the "Sacred Slavery", composed by Doctor Pliny himself:
"Immaculate and Wisdom Heart of Mary, in this atmosphere of our days in which all are free men, drunk with freedom, I know that I have made myself your slave to be like the last of the men of which My Lord ( Dr. Pliny ) can to dispose of as a miserable object without a will of its own. In this atmosphere of our days in which everything speaks of naturalism, I know that my life is entirely supernatural. I am not the one who lives but it is My Lord ( Dr. Pliny) that lives in me. From him all graces come for me, his spirit dwells in me, and I can do, in this union as a slave, all that he himself can. In this climate of our days, without greatness, without horizons, of optimism and mediocrity, I know that our age will bring us grandiose events, with grandiose horizons in which I will have to live as a hero the same greatness of My Lord. Looking within myself and seeing so much smallness, I know that faith in all that I have just said will give me a participation in the very greatness of My Lord ( Doctor Pliny ), and will make myself a perfect Apostle of the end times. , according to the prophetic prayer of St. Louis Grignion de Montfort. In all this I believe, but, oh my Lord (Doctor Pliny), help my unbelief ".
A parody of the Hail Mary towards him (the Doctor) was also recited as a prayer , which incorporated the prophecies of St. Louis, St. Elijah and himself:
"Hail, Luigi Plinio Elia ( official name of Doctor Pliny in Sacred Slavery ), full of love and hate, the Most Holy Virgin is with you you are blessed among the faithful, and the fruit of your love and your hate, which is the Counter-ʀɛʋօʟutιօn, is blessed. O Sacral Luigi Plinio Elia, admirable and most Catholic father of the Counter-ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and the Kingdom of Mary, pray for us lame (capen gas) and sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen ".
The rosary was also recited using this Hail Mary. The meetings also began with the same Hail Mary, the aforementioned prayer of the Sacred Slavery and with the ejaculations: " Hail, Luigi Plinio Elia, admirable and most Catholic father of the Counter-ʀɛʋօʟutιօn and of the Kingdom of Mary! Ave, Luigi Plinio Elia, most faithful slave of Immaculate and Wisdom Heart of Mary! "There were also Litanies for him, the Doctor, and it was said that they had been composed by Marcos Ribeiro Dantas (slave Pliny Paul).
In one of these ejaculations to Doctor Pliny it was said: " Precursor of Elijah, pray for us! "
Doctor Pliny also gave the blessing to his slaves. Sometimes, when they received it, they would lie on the ground with their faces turned upwards and then Doctor Pliny placed his right foot on their face and gave the blessing saying: "Benedictio Matris et Mediatricis descendat super vos et maneat semper ".
Doctor Pliny's slaves used to confess to him, telling him their shortcomings and even their sins. After the accusation, if the slave asked him for a penance, Doctor Pliny had the habit of giving three slaps on the face of the slave. He later gave the blessing.
The entry into the "Always Living" took place, through a ceremony that lasted a few hours, in the building on Via Alagoas, on the second floor of the house, and sometimes in other places.
Doctor Pliny was seated in a small throne with the habit and cloak of the Carmelite Third Order. The assistants used the dress without the cloak. The person who was about to be introduced into the said society stretched out as if dead, prostrated himself on the ground in front of Doctor Pliny. At this point, from Doctor Pliny, he received the order to get up for a new life and he (the Doctor Ed.), Said to him: " Exsurge ". This meant that the person had died and a new man was born, a slave of the prophet, an Apostle of the end times.
The person then fulfilled his consecration as a slave to Doctor Pliny and gave him all his being and his material and spiritual goods. This was done by handing him symbolic objects. Doctor Pliny acquired an absolute right over the slave as in Roman law, except for the right of life and death. This is why they call him " Dominus Plinius ".
The ceremony continued to reach the kiss of the feet and hands of the prophet (Doctor Pliny) by the slave. Then, Doctor Pliny left the throne and made his new slave sit there, since he was now a new Pliny. Doctor Pliny kissed the feet and hands of his new slave. Then, as a result of a transforming union that took place between them, one lived in the other. The slave was a new Pliny. For this reason, he adopted the name of Pliny, composing it with another of a patron and a title of Our Lady. For example, I chose that of Pliny Bernardo Dimas Longinos of Our Lady, Holy Queen of the Apostles of the last times. I was known as Plinio Dimas. The existence of "Sacred Slavery" could not be communicated to the other members of the TFP,
The first twelve slaves were:1) Caio Vidigal Xavier da Silveira - slave Mário Pliny. 2) Eduardo Barros Brotero - Pliny Eduardo slave. 3) Luiz Nazareno d'Assunpção Filho - slave Pliny Luiz. 4) João Scognamiglio Clà Dias - slave Pliny Fernando. 5) Humberto Braccese - slave Plinio Cirineu. 6) Fernando Siqueira - Bernardo slave. 7) Carlos Espírito Hofmeister Poli -slave Plinio José. 8) Marcos Ribeiro Dantes - Pliny Paulo slave. 9) Mário Navarro da Costa - slave Pliny Elias. 10) Dom Bertrand de Orleans and Bragança - slave Plinio Miguel. 11) Atila Sinke Guimarães - slave Plinio Márcio. 12) Cosme Beccar Varella Hijo-slave Plinio Lázaro.As time passed, other people entered the "Always Living". They are:Speaking of his own power and his slaves, Doctor Pliny asked: " What is the power of the Pope compared to all this? "
13) Pliny Vidigal Xavier da Silveira - slave Pliny Elizeu. 14) Paulo Corrêa de Brito Filho - slave Pliny Jeremias. 15) Luiz Filipe Ablas - slave Pliny Dimas. 16) "X" - slave Plinio Inácio. 17) Dom Luiz de Orleans and Bragança - slave Plinio da Cruz. 18) Antônio Marcelino Pereira de Almeida - slave Pliny Francisco. 19) Edson Neves da Silva - slave Pliny Batista. 20) Fernando Antunes Aldunate - slave Pliny Longinos. 21) Leo Nino Doscolo Daniele - slave Plinio Tobias. 22) Fernando Furquin de Almeida Filho - slave Pliny Amen. 23) Martim Afonso Xavier da Silveira Jr. - slave Plinio Pedro. 24) Sergio Bidueira - slave Pliny Hildebrando. 25) José Lúcio de Araújo Correia - slave Plinio Ezquiel. 26) Julio Ubeold - slave Pliny Tomaz. 27) Fernado Teles - slave Plinio Leofredo. 28) Roberto Guerreiro - slave Pliny Agostinho. 29) Afonso Becar Verella - slave Plinio Ambrósio. 30) Miguel Becar Verella - Pliny Domingos slave. 31) Carlos Viano - slave Plinio Godofredo. 32) The Argentine Escurra - slave Pliny Leon. 33) Carlos Antunez Aldunate - slave Plinio Emanuel. 34) Jaime Antunez Aldunate - slave Plinio Gregório. 35) Gonzalo Larrain - slave Plinio Caetano. 36) Patricio Larrain - Pliny João slave. 37) Patrício Amunategui - slave Pliny Santiago. 38) Casté - slave Pliny Joaquim. 39) Pedro Paulo Figueiredo - slave Plinio Jacó '. 40) Carlos Alberto Soares Correia - slave Plinio Atenásio. 41) Aloisio Torres - slave Pliny Macabeu. 42) Roberto Esper Kalás - slave Plinio Bento. 43) Paulo Roberto Rosa - Pliny Tiago slave. 44) Paulo Cesar Nascimento - slave Pliny Henoc. 45) Lúcio Montes - slave Plinio Estevão. 46) "Y" - slave Pliny Afonso. 47) João Carlos Leal da Costa - slave Plinio Matatias. 48) Francisco Xavier Tosto - slave Pliny Isaias. 49) José Antônio Tosto - slave Plinio Sebastian. 50) "Z" - slave Pliny Clóvis. 51) Guerreiro Dantas - slave Plinio Davi. 52) Rivoir - slave Pliny Hermenegildo. 53) Alejandro Bravo - slave Pliny Samuel. 54) Carlos Ybarguren - slave Pliny Antonio. 55) Nelso Fragelli - slave Plinio Tomé. 56) Fernado Larrain - Pliny slave. 52) Rivoir - slave Pliny Hermenegildo. 53) Alejandro Bravo - slave Pliny Samuel. 54) Carlos Ybarguren - slave Pliny Antonio. 55) Nelso Fragelli - slave Plinio Tomé. 56) Fernado Larrain - Pliny slave. 52) Rivoir - slave Pliny Hermenegildo. 53) Alejandro Bravo - slave Pliny Samuel. 54) Carlos Ybarguren - slave Pliny Antonio. 55) Nelso Fragelli - slave Plinio Tomé. 56) Fernado Larrain - Pliny slave.
There were others who, at the time, were not received in the "Always Living", but were equally slaves of Doctor Plinio: Antonio Candido Lara Ducca - Ducca slave and Carlos Eduardo Schafer - Schafer slave.
It was said among the slaves that the "Secret of Mary", of which St. Louis Grignion de Montfort speaks is probably the institution of the "Sacred Slavery" towards Doctor Pliny.
Doctor Pliny was then designated with the nickname "Maria", since Mary's slave was Pliny's slave.
Slaves used to ask for graces, kneeling before Doctor Pliny. For example, Cosme Beccar Varella Hijo, in his consecration, asked "My Lord" for the grace of becoming a widower.
I would also like to declare that I myself consecrated myself as the son of Donna Lucilia (mother of Doctor Pliny), kneeling in her tomb, in the presence of Doctor Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira and his personal guards.
Curitiba, August 24, 1984
Luiz Filipe de Freitas Guimaraes Abias
Witnesses to the deposition:
Orlando Fedeli 1.433.401, RG
Giulio Folena 2.481.149, RG.
Cartorio Ramos, Second Civil Registration Office, Titles and Docuмents, Via Mal. Floriano Peixoto, 986 - Tel. 224-2444.
Declaration presented today. Drawn up and recorded on microfilm (no. 544948). Archive number: 330009.
The articles originally appearing on this site may be reproduced freely,
both in electronic and paper format, provided that
nothing is changed, that the source is specified - the Kelebek website http://www.kelebekler.com (http://www.kelebekler.com) -
and that also publish this clarification.
For articles taken from other sources, consult the respective sites or authors
Yes, and I believe June 13, 1929. It was 100 years to the day with the requested consecration of France to the Sacred Heart of Jesus that the King of France was deposed. Our Lord likened the delay for the consecration of Russia to Our Lady's Immaculate Heart to that same delay ... so I fully expect something terrible to begin unfolding on June 13, 2029.
Leo XIII's 75 years (from the vision) I believe started in 1958, with the Anti-Pope Roncalli kicking off the Conciliar Revolution. That would finish in 2033.
So ... something kicks off on June 13, 2029 that ultimately ends with the Triumph of the Church 3.5 or so years later. That also coincides almost perfectly with exactly 2000 years after the Public Ministry of Our Lord, where His Public Ministry would have begun somewhere in A.D. 29 and ended with His Crucifixion and Resurrection in A.D. 33.
Are you still at this nonsense? NOBODY "worships" Plinio. This has been debunked 100 times and in a 100 different ways, but you persist in it, to the point that it cannot be excused as anything other than willful slander.
That is insane..if you do not mind giving out the info, where did that video come from?
If I reading this thread won't convince you hope the recording of one of the slave processions I am linking below.
That is insane..if you do not mind giving out the info, where did that video come from?I've been investigating and monitoring the TFP for a few years now, and over time, I’ve gathered a significant amount of evidence exposing their real nature—beyond the video I have presented . Recently, I obtained the Video via a Brazilian link . This is just another piece of the puzzle, reinforcing everything I’ve come to understand about them: that behind the grand worship and choreographed public displays, there’s something deeply unsettling about this movement.
I didn't realise TFP had any presence at all in Britain?
Tbh do not take this the wrong way Ladislaus but it is common knowledge to the people of Brazil forexample of the Montfort Association that the TIA are dodgy and the TFP are a Cult. I was heavily involved in the TFP Scene when I was 14 and I 100 percent can say I have seen it first hand worshipping Plinio.
The handwriting analysis has proven that the text in it was written by Sr. Lucia..
After providing more samples of the techniques applied in the study, the graphologist concludes:
"In view of the above findings, it can be determined that, after a thorough analysis, there are qualitative and quantitative elements that the docuмent in question, referred to here as the Unrevealed Third Part of the Secret of Fatima, was made by the same hand as that of the unquestioned docuмents corresponding to the First and Second Parts of the Secret of Fatima, written in fact by Sr. Lucia dos Santo in her Third Memoir of August 31, 1941.
.
Okay, I looked up the article (https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm) and read what the expert actually wrote in her statement. It doesn't say this exactly.
Here's what it says:
So, the expert says there are elements that the docuмent was written by Sr. Lucy.
I wonder if this is a translation issue, but it sounds to me like she is saying there is evidence, or reason to believe, or something similar, that it's authentic. That's a long ways from saying it was certainly written by Sr. Lucy.
She said very plainly "it can be determined that...the docuмent in question...was made by the same hand...".
She is saying that any expert who follows the methods that she has used and explained in her analysis "can determine" the same thing that she has "determined."
it can be determined that, after a thorough analysis, there are qualitative and quantitative elements that the docuмent in question, referred to here as the Unrevealed Third Part of the Secret of Fatima, was made by the same hand
.
I think what can be determined is that those element are there, i.e. elements that they were made by the same hand.
Here's the sentence again:
So, the sentence isn't "It can be determined the docuмent was made by the same hand," but rather "It can be determined that there are ... elements that ... etc."
Now, as far as what it means that there are elements that the docuмents were made by the same hand, I'm not quite sure, and I wish we had the original Spanish so we could fix the translation a bit maybe, but that's what it says.
This interview with the expert might help you:.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170506043836/ttps://www.esdiario.com/elsemanaldigital/199560914/Nada-me-ha-condicionado-ni-a-favor-ni-en-contra.html
(Using Google Translate)
Q: Why are you so sure that the docuмent of the unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima was written, like the first two secrets, by the same hand of Sister Lucia?A: So sure? I only know that my work is done with rigor, with all the knowledge put at the service of expertise. I think it is impossible to write identical two letters, since we have life, movement, and this is what gives the writing of the same person certain differences in the same letter. We also have personal traits that come out of our unconscious part, and that it is impossible for another author other than the same to reproduce them. Speed is very important, because it is very difficult to imitate, inclination, cohesion... These are traits that a counterfeiter cannot maintain in more than six lines in a row, because the unconscious part betrays and the movement of the hand obeys the brain, not our intentions. This is a clear case, that of the docuмent we have studied, in which all these factors are positive, never with enough differences to doubt their authenticity.
.
Oh, thank you, Angelus. This is very interesting. I wonder why they didn't put this on the TIA website.
Was there anything else of interest in the interview?
Chapter 2. On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs
- That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ’s authority, in the church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45] .
- For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46] .
- Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .
- For this reason it has always been necessary for every church–that is to say the faithful throughout the world–to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .
- Therefore,
- if anyone says that
let him be anathema.
- it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
- the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy:
I think it goes against the Faith to say the primacy of the Church can be moved to a different city besides Rome.
There are numerous definitions involving this, but the First Vatican Council (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm) made several decrees that it is the Roman Pontiff who is the head of the Church. This would seem to exclude the bishop of Fatima from ever being the head of the Church.
Here's a quote:
I think it goes against the Faith to say the primacy of the Church can be moved to a different city besides Rome.
There are numerous definitions involving this, but the First Vatican Council (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecuм20.htm) made several decrees that it is the Roman Pontiff who is the head of the Church. This would seem to exclude the bishop of Fatima from ever being the head of the Church.
Here's a quote:
The text doesn't say that "the bishop of Fatima" would be the "head of the Church." You have jumped to that conclusion.Why is it prophecied by so many that the era of peace will be before the antichrist is what confuses me, why is the church of philedephia before laodecia, the only thing which makes sense to me is if the church of philedelphia represented the church between 1929-1958?
IMO, the text in question doesn't literally mean that the Holy See will be moved, geographically, to Fatima, Portugal. It, most likely, has a figurative meaning, like all end times prophecy does. God speaks obliquely about things that He wants to keep as mysteries. Every mystery will not be revealed until the very end.
I think the text is saying basically what was said by Our Lady of La Salette, that "Rome will lose the Faith and become the seat of the Antichrist." This is also what the word "desolation" means in the phrase "abomination of desolation." In other words, Rome will be spiritually desolate because Jesus will not be present in the false church of the Antichrist. Read Apocalypse 17 for more detail.
I believe that the word "Fatima" signifies "the Reign of Mary." This happens AFTER she crushes the head of Satan (and his minister, the Antichrist). This is the Era of Peace. It is a supernatural era, age, period.
This is at the END of our time, age, era. This new period is described as "the New Heaven and New Earth," when Jesus will "make all things new" (Apocalypse 21:5). Read the entirety of Apocalypse Chapter 21, the new "age" discussed there is not like our "age." It is a place where "death shall be no more...for the former things are passed away."
Specifically to your point, Apocalypse 21:22 says that there will be "no temple therein. For the Lord God Almighty is the temple thereof, and the Lamb." So, the text is perfectly consistent with the Apocalypse.
And finally, the location of St. Peter's original See was Antioch. So the geographical location of St. Peter's See does not have to be Rome. But, again, I think to interpret the text in such a naturalistic way is wrong.
What about Avignon? That's a historical precedent..
The primacy did not move, it was just that the Roman pontiff was in exile.
In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.
Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.
The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.
If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
And finally, the location of St. Peter's original See was Antioch. So the geographical location of St. Peter's See does not have to be Rome. But, again, I think to interpret the text in such a naturalistic way is wrong..
.
The pope continued being the bishop of Rome even while he physically lived at Avignon. He did not move the seat of the Church to Avignon, nor did he say Avignon was now the head of the Church, nor did he say he was the bishop of Avignon now and no longer the bishop of Rome.
But the text we're talking about does say the authority of the Church must be moved to Fatima, and that Rome will be destroyed. It says the cathedral church of Rome, which is the headquarters of the bishop in any diocese, must be demolished, and be built in Fatima instead. It also says the tomb of St. Peter must be moved to Fatima. It mentions multiple symbols of the authority of the papacy that are located in Rome, and says they must be taken out of Rome (or destroyed there) and put in Fatima instead:
Why is it prophecied by so many that the era of peace will be before the antichrist is what confuses me, why is the church of philedephia before laodecia, the only thing which makes sense to me is if the church of philedelphia represented the church between 1929-1958?
.
St. Peter went from Antioch to Rome under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. And the idea is that he established the Church permanently in Rome, and that this is of divine institution, and it will never be moved from Rome.
Also, I posted earlier the definitions of the First Vatican Council that the Roman Pontiff is the head of the Church. How would he be the Roman pontiff if his see is moved to Fatima and taken out of Rome?
You say "never." Did you understand what I said about the end times and the transition that takes place to a new era after "the end times?" The "end times" culminates in "the end of the world as we know it."
I agree with you that the Holy See will be located in Rome during the current era (which we are near the end of). But the Third Secret is linked to the prophecy of Daniel. Daniel and the Apocalypse explain not only how the current era will end. They also go into detail about what St. John calls "the New Heaven and New Earth," which is a mysterious new era that is the reward for the "elect" after passing through the "final trial" of the Antichrist.
You say "never." Did you understand what I said about the end times and the transition that takes place to a new era after "the end times?" The "end times" culminates in "the end of the world as we know it."Don’t put quotes around the elect
I agree with you that the Holy See will be located in Rome during the current era (which we are near the end of). But the Third Secret is linked to the prophecy of Daniel. Daniel and the Apocalypse explain not only how the current era will end. They also go into detail about what St. John calls "the New Heaven and New Earth," which is a mysterious new era that is the reward for the "elect" after passing through the "final trial" of the Antichrist.
You say "never." Did you understand what I said about the end times and the transition that takes place to a new era after "the end times?" The "end times" culminates in "the end of the world as we know it."Explain Luke 18:8
I agree with you that the Holy See will be located in Rome during the current era (which we are near the end of). But the Third Secret is linked to the prophecy of Daniel. Daniel and the Apocalypse explain not only how the current era will end. They also go into detail about what St. John calls "the New Heaven and New Earth," which is a mysterious new era that is the reward for the "elect" after passing through the "final trial" of the Antichrist.
You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consecration_of_Russia) to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist) of reparation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Reparation) on the First Saturdays (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Saturday_Devotions). If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fátima#cite_note-8)(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fátima#cite_note-8)
Don’t put quotes around the elect
predestination is a Catholic dogma
Explain Luke 18:8
If to e plain Luke 18:8 you say that Christ will return before the era of peace, that sounds a lot like moderate chiliasm, which has the theological note of erroneous.
Angelus, I think your interpretation of this text is so broad that someone could literally make it mean anything using the methods you are using. I could just as easily argue that it is a prophecy of the 2004 World Series, and that everything is a metaphor for the victory of the Red Sox that ended the Curse of the Bambino (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Bambino) that year.
That definitely doesn't match up with the rest of the Fatima secrets. The events prophesied in the other parts of the message are clear and straightforward, and came true. There isn't anything prophesied in the first secret of Fatima, which is the vision of hell, but here's the second secret, and I'll underline the prophesies. You'll see that they are all literal:
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Secrets_of_Fátima#cite_note-8)
None of this is the sort of symbolic apocalyptic message that you are trying to say the third secret contains.
Yeti, you seem to be looking for a Third Secret that will tell you "literally" what will happen in the "end times.".
Each end times prophecy, Biblical or private revelation, will have some elements that are literal, mixed up with elements that are figurative. The challenge is to determine which is which. It is not a perfect science and depends more on prayer and humility than science anyway.
Do you deny that there will be a supernatural intervention that separates our current era from the new era? As St. Augustine explains, in our current era, the Church is a mixed society (containing both true Christians and bad). But in the coming era, the "era of peace," the Church will only contain the good Christians and these Christians will be "immortal." That is not a description of our current world. In our current world, all men are mortal. Therefore, the new era will be something completely different from what we now know. Do you deny this?
If you don't deny that the new era will be something completely different, then why do you worry about the Church's geographical headquarters? It is irrelevant.
.
Oh, I think I see the problem here. I don't know of any indication that the third secret is a prophecy of the end times. I'm not aware that Our Lady or any of the seers said this. Why do you think it is?
The Faith teaches that the world will last until Christ comes again at the end of the world to judge the living and the dead. That will be the last judgment. After that, every human being will be either in heaven or in hell. The Church Militant and Church Suffering will no longer exist; only the Church Triumphant. That state will last for all eternity. Most of this is Catholic dogma. The statement of St. Augustine is referring to the state of eternity after the end of the world and the last judgment. The supernatural intervention that you mention is the second coming of Christ, the end of the world, the general resurrection, and the last judgment.
I'm not sure what you're describing here, and it doesn't seem to match this all that well.
Rome will not be the headquarters of the Church after the end of the world because the Church Militant will not exist any longer, and probably Rome itself will not exist either. My concern is that it seems to violate the canons of Vatican I, Trent, and other councils to say that Rome will cease to be the head of the Church before the end of the world. It is defined that the Roman pontiff is the successor of St. Peter and the head of the Church. Theologians have said this must mean that the holy see cannot be moved to any other diocese apart from Rome, since then the bishop of that other diocese, and not the Roman pontiff, would be the head of the Church.
But the text of this third secret says that the authority of the Church will be moved to Fatima, that the tomb of St. Peter will be moved to Fatima, that the cathedral of the pope (the headquarters of the pope as bishop of Rome) must be destroyed and replaced with one in Fatima. It also holds out the possibility that Rome itself, as a city, will be destroyed, which is something theologians have rejected as impossible for the same reasons, namely that there cannot be a bishop of Rome, i.e. a pope, if the city of Rome does not exist.
Can you give some specific examples of prophecies (quotes please) that say that the era of peace comes BEFORE the Antichrist? Do you think Ven. Holzhauser is saying that? If so, I can explain exactly where in the Apocalypse timeline Ven. Holzhauser's prophecy of the Angelic Pope/Great Monarch fits in. Holzhauser himself explains it.It seems that Ven holzhauser was saying that because he said it was the sixth age and the age of the antichrist was the seventh, but I guess one could just say that the sixth age was the church from 1929-1958 and this 29 year period sounds a lot like “20 years of good harvest” mentioned at La Sallete
The short explanation is that Holzhauser says that the "Mighty Angel" who comes at the beginning of Apocalypse chapter 10 is the "Great Monarch." Again, that is Holzhausers interpretation of St. John's words, not mine. That scene occurs during what the Apocalypse calls the Second Woe. It is during the First Woe that the Antichrist shows up for the first time. The Antichrist is still active AFTER the scene of the Great Monarch. So it is more precise to say that the "era of peace" (ushered in but the Great Monarch and Angelic Pope) begins in the middle of the activity of the Antichrist.
I can go into more detail with specific quotes from Holzhauser and locations in the Apocalypse if you are interested. Otherwise, I'll leave it at that.
I think that we might have a different understanding of how the "era of peace" will come about and what the "era of peace" will look like. Can you describe, in your estimation, how this "era of peace" comes about and the main differences between our current era and that future "the era of peace?" Or, even better, can you provide quotes from Church-recognized authorities that explain what you are referring to?Well there will be faith in the earth during the era of peace, does that mean Our Lord won’t return until a long time, and he doesn’t return right after the defeat of the antichrist,