The Third Secret of Fatima?

Where can I find official documentation on this?

[quote=javelin]Where can I find official documentation on this?

Some 14 years after the trial, the Vatican said the Virgin had indeed made such a prophesy./QUOTE]

I had heard this before, but thought it was only speculation, not that the Vatican had verified it.

Peace,
javelin

The Vatican may have verified the prophecy… but there is much speculation that an “attempt” fulfills or equates to an “assasination”
[/quote]

[quote=javelin]Where can I find official documentation on this?
javelin
[/quote]

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFATIMA.HTM

cathgal,

Thanks for the link. I have never read that in its entirety. I am afraid to ask this question for fear that this thread will take off on somewhat of a tangent but here goes.

Part of the Fatima requests by Our Lady was that Russia be consecrated to her. From this article and others that I have read, this was accomplished to her satisfaction. However, every time this aspect of Fatima is brought up there are those who claim that the consecration was never done. Has Russia been consecrated to The Blessed Lady as she requested?

“The consecration” was accepted in heaven.

I would imagine that any consecration by JPII would be accepted in heaven. That is not the issue.

But if you read the words of the consecration (links on other current threads), it was the world which was consecrated. Hardly the exclusive request of the Blessed Mother. Someday it may happen. Your salvation is not dependant on it.

[quote=emsvetich]cathgal,

Thanks for the link. I have never read that in its entirety. I am afraid to ask this question for fear that this thread will take off on somewhat of a tangent but here goes.

Part of the Fatima requests by Our Lady was that Russia be consecrated to her. From this article and others that I have read, this was accomplished to her satisfaction. However, every time this aspect of Fatima is brought up there are those who claim that the consecration was never done. Has Russia been consecrated to The Blessed Lady as she requested?
[/quote]

If any said differently, ignore them. They don’t know what they’re talking about. Your reliable source is from the Vatican, not them.

I feel the state of faith in Russia then and now is clear enough that the consecration was not carried out properly. Communism or not… There is definately something wrong with the picture…

[quote=jdnation]I feel the state of faith in Russia then and now is clear enough that the consecration was not carried out properly. Communism or not… There is definately something wrong with the picture…
[/quote]

I firmly believe that under communism the ability to resist evil was greatly reduced. Which could explain the faith in Russia right now. I think that if so many bishops and priests hadn’t taken the message of Fatima and kicked it into a closet we wouldn’t be in this big catastrophy. I believe the consecration was done properly as Sister Lucy was qouted in saying, however, it is too little too late.

[quote=jdnation]I feel the state of faith in Russia then and now is clear enough that the consecration was not carried out properly. Communism or not… There is definately something wrong with the picture…
[/quote]

So then let me ask you this question.

When Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia say tht the consecration was done correctly, were they lieing or just confused?

Thats what it all comes down to. Either the person who did the consecration and the person who got the message are telling the truth or they are not. Its that simple. I chose to believe the Holy Father and Sr Lucia.

What is the State of Faith in Russia? Could the consecration have lead to the downfall of communism and the rebrith of the Orthodox faith in Russia? Or does it have to mean that Russia will become fully Catholic?

Anyways, its a priviate revelation so it does not have any binding force on it, so it really doesn’t matter.

I choose to believe our beloved Church - not mere conspiracy theorists…

The fall of Russian Communism was the first fruits of a VALID Consecration 1984.

To say the 1984 Consecration of the World was not valid, but may have been enough to bring about the fall of Russian Communism is to my mind not only just plain silly - but also dangerously and gravely sacriligeous - these conspiracy theorists are calling JP2 & B16 liars, God forgive them.

Bishop Hinlica consecrated the world on the same day as the rest of the Bishops in 1984, acting undercover in St. Micheals Church in the Kremlin. According to Bishop Hinlica , the prophetic vision of Fatima will be reconcliation of the Russian Orthodox and Catholic Churches.

The 1st 5 saturdays devotion, daily rosary, continual penance and prayer are all still required to see the prophetic vision of Our Lady of Fatima become reality - sooner rather than later.

[font=Verdana]There is a previous thread on this topic for further info…

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=92891
[/font]

Those who doubt the consecration was fulfilled do so for a couple of reasons,

  1. Sister Lucia, between 1984 and 1989, allegedly said
    several times that the 1984 consecration was NOT
    sufficient to fulfill Our Lady’s requests.

  2. Sister Lucia allegedly said that the consecration DID
    fulfill Our Lady’s requests for the first time, in 1989
    after allegedly denying it for 5-1/2 years.

  3. Pope John Paul II consecrated “the world” to Mary’s
    Immaculate Heart, not mentioning Russia by name.
    Previous popes had ALSO consecrated “the world” to
    Mary’s immaculate heart without mentioning Russia
    by name and THOSE consecrations were NOT accepted.

So there is controversy. Another factor is that Russia has not converted since the Fall of communism and public morality there has sunk drastically, not improved.

Personally, I think the 1984 consecration did fulfill Our Lady’s request.

Love,
Jaypeeto3

[quote=ByzCath]When Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia say tht the consecration was done correctly, were they lieing or just confused?
[/quote]

I don’t recall the John Paul II ever saying it was done correctly. Sr. Lucia says something like ‘Heaven has accepted it’ (The consecration of the world which was supposed to include Russia) however, whether this means Heaven has really accepted it as being equatable to the requested consecration of Russia by name or that heaven has simply accepted our attitude towards the request and wil lrespond in kind is up for debate.

Thats what it all comes down to. Either the person who did the consecration and the person who got the message are telling the truth or they are not. Its that simple. I chose to believe the Holy Father and Sr Lucia.

In such a case I’d believe them too. But I don’t recall john paul II ever saying it was carried out correctly, though I feel he tried but for somereason was unable to sucessfully get the co-operation of the bishops worldwide for the consecration.

What is the State of Faith in Russia? Could the consecration have lead to the downfall of communism and the rebrith of the Orthodox faith in Russia? Or does it have to mean that Russia will become fully Catholic?

Russia’s Catholic faith is abysmal. Morality is worse and thigns like abortion etc. are atrocious. Communism may be no more, but Mary warned that she was more concerned about the spread of the errors of communism around the world, and that is quite true today.

“We must admit realistically and with feelings of deep pain, that Christians today in large measure feel lost, confused, perplexed and even disappointed; ideas opposed to the truth which has been revealed and always taught are being scattered abroad in abundance; heresies, in the full and proper sense of the word, have been spread in the area of dogma and morals, creating doubts, confusions and rebellion; the liturgy has been tampered with; immersed in an intellectual and moral relativism and therefore in permissiveness, Christians are tempted by atheism, agnosticism, vaguely moral enlightenment and by a sociological Christianity devoid of defined dogmas or an objective morality.” *
[right]
… Pope John Paul II, quoted in
L’Osservatore Romano,
February 7, 1981*
[/right]

Anyways, its a priviate revelation so it does not have any binding force on it, so it really doesn’t matter.

It was begun as private revelation, and then made public through the act of one of the best recorded miracles in our modern age. There was also the request that the Church make the third secret known to teh public, but this was mysteriously delayed, and what has been released is doubted to be the entirety of the matter. Many believe it has to do with Apostacy, and even Pope Benedict, then Cardinal Ratzinger, is on record suggesting this…

"On November 11, 1984, Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, gave an interview in *Jesus *magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. The interview is entitled “Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis,” and was published with the Cardinal’s explicit permission. In this interview Cardinal Ratzinger admits that a crisis of faith is affecting the Church around the world. In this context, he reveals that he has read the Third Secret and that the Secret refers to “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore (the life) of the world.” "

“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” *
[right]
… Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi, Pope John
Paul II’s personal papal theologian, quoted
in the journal Catholic, March 2002*
[/right]
[left]Long story short, I don’t know the exact truth, but something is off and you can count me skeptical. I was suspicious about Pope Benedict before and his hand in this as outlined in the book ‘The Devil’s Final Battle’ which you can read online here:
devilsfinalbattle.com/content2.htm

It makes accusations against then Cardinal Ratzinger and others, though keeping up with the times, Pope Benedict has since distanced himself from people like Kung, and said that he has recognized many of the mistakes he’s made back then. He is now pope because God wills it, and some speculate that the prophecy of the ‘bishop in white’ may not be John Paul II, but really about him, the supposed ‘glory of the Olive.’ Frankly I’d hope that perhaps the Church will address this issue and take on the conspiracy claims concerning the third secret, but nothing has refuted them yet, least to my knowledge, and this is the only area where I find difficulty in understanding the Church’s actions. Perhaps they know something we don’t and it’s for our own good… I don’t know. But as I said, I’m skeptical…[/left]

It is a privite revelation. Does not matter if it was made public. This makeing it public does not make it a public revelation.

Per the Catechism.

There will be no further Revelation

66 "The Christian economy, therefore, since it is the new and definitive Covenant, will never pass away; and no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ."28 Yet even if Revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries.

67 Throughout the ages, there have been so-called “private” revelations, some of which have been recognized by the authority of the Church. They do not belong, however, to the deposit of faith. It is not their role to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation, but to help live more fully by it in a certain period of history. Guided by the Magisterium of the Church, the sensus fidelium knows how to discern and welcome in these revelations whatever constitutes an authentic call of Christ or his saints to the Church. Christian faith cannot accept “revelations” that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such “revelations”.

Nothing of Fatima can be considered part of the deposit of the faith. Faithful Catholics do not have to believe anything about Fatima. It is a private revelation. Does not matter if there was a miracle or not.

[quote=ByzCath]When Pope John Paul II and Sr Lucia say tht the consecration was done correctly, were they lieing or just confused?
[/quote]

Pope John Paul II never said that. Cardinal Ratzinger saying something or Cardinal Sodano saying something or the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Fatih saying something or the Pope’s personal secretary saying something is not the same thing as the then Pope saying it. You should know that and not “fudge” the truth to get your point across. But perhaps Pope John Paul II did directly personally – and not according to someone else, but he himself directly speaking – say that – in which case please document that so we may learn about it.

As for Sr Lucia – we do not have her direct testimony that she said such a thing. Direct testimony of her saying such a thing would involve either a life press conference that is televised which we are able to see with our own eyes or a handwritten note which is verified by independent experts as being of Lucia.

What we do have is other people’s say so that Sr Lucia said it. Yes these people include a Cardinal. But that makes the evidence rest on that Cardinal’s truthfulness, not on Lucia’s truthfulness and your comment obscures that.

What is the State of Faith in Russia? Could the consecration have lead to the downfall of communism and the rebrith of the Orthodox faith in Russia? Or does it have to mean that Russia will become fully Catholic?

The Eastern UnOrthodox faith is not the true faith. It contains more truth than say atheism or polytheism or Protestantism. But it is not the fulness of the Christian faith which is Jesus’ gift to the world and to the Church. You would have God as being not supremely generous but as holding back from Russia. Our Lady’s promise of conversion did not seem to be one of God’s holding back, but of God, with Our Lady, showering mercy unbounded upon Russia, just as they did upon the Americas when the natives here were in great numbers converted to the one truth faith which is the Catholic faith, the fulness of Christianity.

Anyways, its a priviate revelation so it does not have any binding force on it, so it really doesn’t matter.

It does not have the binding force of a magisterial teaching. It does have the binding force of conscience for anyone who in his own conscience is convinced of its truth and authenticity. All authority is from God and if the apparition is from God it has divine authority. In the case of teachings of the magisterium, they have not only divine authority but a divine authority which is confirmed by ecclesiastical authority – i.e. which is made apparent by the ecclesiastical authority or magisterium so that there can be no dispute as to whether it is truly from God and thus possessing of divine authority. That is why we speak of believing truths of our faith with both divine and catholic faith.

Most theologians hold that in the case of apparitions they are not to be believed with divine faith as God did not directly reveal them to us. But they are owed a human faith, according to the rules of prudence – one of the theologians who stated this mind you, went on to become a Pope – and so disregarding them or dismissing them without regard to the weight that a Church ruling on them ought be accorded would be a sin – not a sin against faith, but a sin against prudence. Likewise, believing in one that has been ruled by the Church to not be of supernatural origin, would be a sin as well. Both of these facts are explained well here:

ewtn.com/expert/answers/medjugorje.htm

[quote=jdnation]I don’t recall the John Paul II ever saying it was done correctly.
[/quote]

What? - JP2 never had the opportunity to change the official interpretation of Fatima as documented by the Church? Of course he did.

It still comes down to the Church vs. the conspirasist theorists - I go with the Church everytime.

Face it - the 1984 Consecration was valid - thats why the Berlin wall came down -and now Christians can worship openly in Russia. But we still need to make the 1st 5 Saturdays and offer up prayer and penance for the reconciliation of the Russian Orthodox and Catholic Churches, only then will we see the fulfilment the prophetic vision of Fatima.

DD

I believe the consecration was done but it was too little too late.

[quote=deekod1967]What? - JP2 never had the opportunity to change the official interpretation of Fatima as documented by the Church? Of course he did.
[/quote]

Then that is the statement and argument you should make, rather than the one that ByzCath made. I know you are not responsible at all for what he said, but I thought it just to point this out.

It does not excuse a statement at variance with the truth for it to be said that the statement while at variance is only a little at variance. That may make a sin otherwise mortal into a venial one (I am speaking generally and am aware that in general it is only a venial sin) but it never makes that which is a sin into something which is not, let alone something which is good.

[quote=amor]It does not excuse a statement at variance with the truth for it to be said that the statement while at variance is only a little at variance. That may make a sin otherwise mortal into a venial one (I am speaking generally and am aware that in general it is only a venial sin) but it never makes that which is a sin into something which is not, let alone something which is good.
[/quote]

With respect Amor - say again?

The following website claims it has "The true third secret of Our Lady of Fatima."
maryisgod.org/

[quote=deekod1967]With respect Amor - say again?
[/quote]

Read the thread. John Paul never said what ByzCath attributed to him.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.