Fatima Fulfilled But Still Foreboding
by Robert Sungenis

Uh, no....

No one can prove the consecration already happened, and common sense tells us it hasn't.  When one goes to confession, you receive graces IMMEDIATELY, not 60 years later.  When Our Lady promises that Russia will convert, it will happen IMMEDIATELY after the consecration.  Why would there be a delay?   

It's very clear that the intent behind the consecration is that the world must clearly understand that Our Blessed Mother (Her Immculate Heart) is behind whatever took place.  God wishes to honor her.  With that in mind, the consecration should ...

1) be done very publicly (if it's done together with all the bishops, then the notoriety of it would be optimal ... this would be a big deal that everyone would know about) ... not buried in a footnote in some relatively-obscured minor papal docuмent

2) the the result would be immediate and very dramatic (miraculous even)

This way everyone will be forced to acknowledge that Our Lady's intercession obtained that outcome, that Russia was converted by Our Blessed Mother, and not the political maneuverings of Karol Wojtyla and Ronald Reagan.

This is precisely why Catholic prophecy speaks of the entire world being converted.  It will be because they would recognize the power of the Catholic pope performing a consecration to Our Blessed Mother, so that they would become believers in both the Church and Our Lady's prerogatives.

Fr. Chazal said quite a bit about Fatima in his latest sermon

Although I really appreciate Sungenis' work on geocentrism, I'm beginning to lose confidence in him.

He's gotten this (IMO) completely wrong and is also on the wrong side of the Flat Earth issue .

I've never had much confidence in him, even after reading his geocentrism books, simply because he accepts way too much of Mainstream science. I even went to the point of comparing his "commentary" on Bl. Hildegard's visions of the cosmos to the original text; and he extrapolated a LOT based upon modern science from what was actually in the text.

When he sticks to the Fathers and what the Church taught on geocentrism, he's good. But I think he gets way too far out in the weeds when he tackles the science because it involves accepting a lot of assumptions of modern cosmology which are passed off as "fact."

Awesome.  Father Chazal also believes there was a fake Sister Lucy!

I had to replay that part, I was very surprised to hear it

Awesome.  Father Chazal also believes there was a fake Sister Lucy!

Was he implying that Mel Gibson was also in on the deception?

I posted the OP because I at least wanted people to have a chance to look at Fatima from outside the de facto "dogmatic" box many have painted themselves into about it.  Sungenis, a very accomplished Catholic apologist, is certainly no intellectual lightweight and although I disagree with him on some things, I doubt that there is anyone on this thread who has studied Fatima more than he has.

I'm not saying that Sungenis' 115 page work is correct, but I do believe it is worthy of consideration -- serious consideration.  Dismissing a case without actually examining the evidence, especially that of one who has spent the better part of his life arduously defending the Catholic faith, may not be such a great idea.

As regards the above, I was pleased to find the following comment by Mark 79 earlier today on another thread: "Fatima is not part of the Deposit of Faith, yet many (most?) “trads” get wrapped around the axle over it. I am not among them. I believe it is authentic, but so wrapped in intrigues and secrecy that it is impossible for any of us to fully know the details."  I couldn't agree more!