I finally read Emmett's article titled "St. Michael's Lent, the 2017 Solar Eclipse, and the Angel of the Sixth Seal", I had skimmed through it a few weeks ago. At that time, I took note of what he stated about Saint Michael's lent (40 days) beginning on the solar eclipse on 8/21/17, continuing through the Woman Clothed With The Sun sign on 9/23/17 and ending on the Jewish feast of Yom Kippur (the Day of Atonement), on 9/30/17. What I realized tonight was that he appears to place the opening of the sixth seal on 9/23/17. Some people believe that the opening of the sixth seal represents the Warning. This has been my feeling for a couple of months now, that the Warning may occur on 9/23/17. Very interesting, be ready just in case. I think that Emmett is placing the Gog/Magog war (Ez. 38/39) immediately before the Second Coming, if that is the case I do not agree. I do not believe that this war is Armageddon. In Ez. 38/39, it states that Israel will be burning weapons for 7 years, so IMHO I don't think it can be Armageddon. But, Satan will gather whomever remains in opposition to Christ from Gog and Magog for Armageddon, the final battle/war before the Second Coming: Rev 20:7 And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. I still need to read the other article...
Reading Socci and Zavala's books on Fatima I have seriously wonder if Bertone manipulated the relationship between sister Lucia and pope JPII, by forcing/intimidating her into obedience to an official version that he himself (and maybe other cardinals) wanted to make sure will be the version accepted by pope JPII and the future popes - the version that the consecration was done and accepted by heaven. As you all know Zavala just published an incredibly powerful interview with Fr Amorth in his book about Fatima, and Amorth couldn't express more clearly that Sr Lucia never ever agreed that the consecration had been done. He was in the Curia and had for many years direct access to pretty much everyone there, including the popes. He has been there long enough to know deep down what happens inside the Vatican walls, and how to discern what is bs stories from the real thing. Mr Evaristo's rumorology can't not even remotely compare to Amorth testimony, unless he was told by God or the Virgin herself and he had prove of it, I have no reason to believe him, no matter how convincing his arguments or the purported video may be. I would even rather believe Bertone's terribly incoherent version. Remember that sister Lucia had strict orders from her bishop and the Vatican to not speak about Fatima in public, so just wondering how she can show up in tv interview and speak on behalf of the pope and the Vatican that the consecration is valid...
I suppose the logical follow up to the explanation that the prevention of a nuclear war in 1985 due to the Consecration done in 1984, and that that was only the beginning of a continuance of things getting better until the full Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, then how did that particular, yet limited, fruit of the limited 1984 Consecration wind up instead giving us the much much worse situation of the world today? I thought that our Lady emphasized then (and since then in follow up type apparitions that have been necessary) that wars would end and only would there be new ones IF we (including the Church) DID NOT fulfill her requests. It would appear then that instead of the peace promised as the outcome of that "fulfilled" Consecration request we are instead reaping what we were warned of IF that wasn't accomplished. We (via the Church and its hierarchy throughout this particular history) have been challenging God re: His order established for us through His own Mother's mission and the words specified by Him in this intervention for our benefit. And if the Consecration "would be done....but it would be late" then obviously 1984 is NOT late in the scheme of the continuing history of the world since then. One should logically come to the conclusion when witnessing what is taking place in this "instant" that we are now living through, that we are now VERY LATE and still looking for the completion of that full Consecration. One thing that Pope John Paul II emphasized was that reason must accompany faith. Well, reasonably, today is extremely late and something must be done and quickly in order to avoid that other part of the prediction.....horrible things for the world as well as the Church would happen. The good that was promised is NOT slowly taking place IMHO; but just the opposite is occurring and it won't be reversed until what Mary requested in her exact words "finally" takes place.
Jarg I did not know that Sister Lucia had strict orders from her bishop and the Vatican to not speak about Fatima in public! I find that remarkable! When were these strict orders given? And who in the Vatican gave these gag orders? Were they published and if so where? Did the average Catholic know about these orders? And if these strict gag orders were given....were they lifted at some stage? or did Sister Lucia get some sort of dispensation, to enable her to give the published interviews she granted to bishops, Mr Haffert and others?
And I think all of that was permitted due to the emphasis on "collegiality" since Vat II. No other authority was to interfere with the conclusions or authority of a "brother" Cardinal. That is why the Pope is now so underserved by those around him. Only he is to "wield the Key".....not a committee. That interview with Fr. Amorth from comment #6: https://onepeterfive.com/chief-exorcist-father-amorth-padre-pio-knew-the-third-secret/
Sr. Lucia Silenced Editors and reporters from Catholic media immediately sought reaction from Sr. Lucia, but this proved futile. They found that Sr. Lucia was strictly forbidden to speak about the Third Secret to anyone, and was allowed no visitors other than close friends and relatives. After 1960, even her longtime confessor (since the 1930’s), Fr. José da Silva Aparicio was not allowed to see her when he returned to Portugal from Brazil — even though in the early 1950’s he was free to do so. Permission Denied Shortly after the conclusion of the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI abrogated Canons 1399 and 2318 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law on November 15, 1966, thereby permitting anyone in the Church to publish on the subject of Marian apparitions without obtaining an official imprimatur. However, Sr. Lucia, alone out of 700 million Catholics worldwide, was denied the benefit of this dispensation. Bound by her vow of obedience as a nun, the one person who actually received the Message of Our Lady of Fatima remained forbidden to speak freely on the subject, without special permission from the Vatican. Quick Confirmation In June of 1987, Sr. Lucia made a rare excursion outside her convent to vote in a general election. In a brief exchange with a journalist, Enrico Romero, Sr. Lucia confirmed once again that the consecration of Russia had not been done. Instructions to Contradict Two years later, in the summer of 1989, Sr. Lucia received a surprising instruction from an anonymous official at the Vatican. The instruction directed that Sr. Lucia and her fellow religious at the convent must now say that the consecration performed in March of 1984 satisfied the request of Our Lady of Fatima. This extraordinary order to flatly contradict herself was revealed by Father Messias Coelho, a longtime friend and occasional visitor of Sr. Lucia. In evident obedience to the same instruction, Sr. Lucia’s cousin Maria do Fetal suddenly reversed herself, and quoted Sr. Lucia as saying the consecration had been done. A Bogus Interview In the autumn of 1992, Sr. Lucia was allegedly interviewed by Father FrancescoPacheco, Cardinal Antony Padiyara and Bishop Francis Michaelappa. The clerics’ chauffeur, Carlos Evaristo, later published an account of the interview, which included the usual claims that the consecration had been done. One of the clerics, Fr. Pacheco, later published a repudiation of this report, calling the credibility of Mr. Evaristo, the chauffeur and self-confessed "conceptual translator", and his report of this interview into question. ........................................ Nagging Questions about Antonio Socci’s Latest Article on Fatima By John Salza http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/vlarchive/pdf/vl133_BT030_Socci-Salza2_HiRes.pdf
There is no doubt that Fr Amorth thought that the 1984 Consecration didn't fulfill the requirements of Our Lady but he died before most of the reliable information about what Sister Lucia believed had emerged. The new video from Carlos Evaristo is certainly the best source of accurate information on the topic along with the interview with the excellent and reliable witness, Dr. Frederick Zugibe which can be read at: http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/zuglucia.htm The recent book from Sister Lucia's convent (Pathway under the Gaze of Mary) is the final nail in the coffin for the collection of misinformation which is on Fr Gruner's site but which is clearly still treated as gospel by several forum members. Jarge refers to 'Mr Evaristo's rumorology'! Really?? I don't always agree with Emmett O'Regan on his website but he has captured well some of the critical and important information from the new book, including the irrefutable confirmation of Sister Lucia's belief that the Consecration was done and accepted in 1984. For those who haven't yet watched Mr Evaristo's video, here it is again:
Thanks for pointing out once again the best source of information David. It is understood that the word conversion | --- | we should not be mistaken, the word conversion | --- | means a change, what happened is | ------------------------ | does not mean that all evil disappears. "... with me [?] ... the Holy Father consecrate me | ---- | the word Russia. [someone says: of course, of course] I will consecrate Russia, which will be converted. But this peace [or maybe part?] | --- | wars, the wars and persecutions that the errors of atheistic communism were causing throughout the world.http://motheofgod.com/posts/173917/
Yes, I think I should correct my statement. The video is a very good source of accurate information! I'm not sure what the best is. This is the biggest problem associated with the confusion surrounding Fatima and the Consecration. Fr Gruner's websites flooded the market! For a long time I went to his sites because there seemed to be nothing else on the internet. The World Apostolate of Fatima is a reliable source of information and they have websites at: https://wafusa.org/the-apostolate/ and http://www.worldfatima-englandwales.org.uk/ The late John Haffert was a really reliable source of information and I have copied a link before from one of his articles: http://www.motherofallpeoples.com/2005/06/sister-lucia-and-the-third-day-of-the-week-of-fatima/ I think the new book from Sister Lucia's nuns is probably now the best source of accurate on Fatima.
Some progress. Your best source of information is no longer your best source of information. I hope it is not too late when you finally see the truth...
Must be nice for John to mention a Cardinal. What quotes from Cardinal Ricardo Vidal of the Philippines has he got? He must have some, as you call John a reliable source. The Haffert article doesnt mention Evaristo,your former champion.
The fact that Father Amorth set up the one and only real attempt to have the Pope consecrate Russia, is testimony that he took this event very seriously, as did Pope John Paul. Both Father Amorth and Pope John Paul II expressed their immediate recognition that the consecration to the World, which Pope John Paul questioned several times before doing, fell short of the request of our Lady of Fatima. There is no doubt the consecration he did to the world had merit and was accepted by God, but even he knew it fell short of fulfilling our Lady of Fatima specific request. Heaven's requests are not suggestions as scripture foretells in so many places. They are mandates not to be short-cutted for a very specific reason of God's.
Thank you for saving me the time to respond. I could not recall exactly where but I know this kind of information comes out in other books about Fatima, including the Zavala book which is he last one I have read, and Zavala is the kind of journalist that would never use fatima.org as a source, he only works with primary sources. So I think fatima.org here is just summarizing what others have published. In any event, it is very frequent for a bishop, or even a spiritual director, to request a seer not to speak about purported apparitions, and/or request permission to the bishop if they are asked by a journalist to provide an interview. When the Vatican steps in and pronounces itself about an apparition, the reasons to request a seer to be silent on the subject are even more understandable. The seer's public comments can be easily framed or manipulated by the press or mr Evaristo types, could cause tremendous damage and confusion, or lead people to superstition and a wrong understanding of the apparition itself. It's common sense to request the seer to be silent, no matter how tough that may seem - it also a way of testing the good faith/sanctity of the seer. That is why I have a hard time believing mr Evaristo's construction, because Sor Lucia was a saint and she would have never been so indiscreet, not to mention disobedient, about such a critical subject.
The trouble though is that Sr. Lucia had a history of being free to offer her thoughts publicly for a long time which completely differed with the later "party line". She had given her reasoning for the incomplete 1982 consecration which would remain the same for the 1984. That is where Fr. Amorth questions the new kind of illogical rationalization offered for the simple to swallow. After C. Bertone took over, with his desire to relegate Fatima to the past with no further speculation about a future of a disordered Church and world, the clamp down on Sr. Lucia, under obedience to the Church's hierarchical authority was what has caused the real confusion and division. Since then the Church has been guilty of a grave sin against the faithful due to the influence to no longer emphasize the entirety of the requests made at Fatima.....so people are now uneducated about Fatima, no longer pray for the conversion of Russia as requested, and actually are forced into believing that what they see around them taking place in the Church and the world should be of no concern. That's literally a purposeful type of diabolical disorientation placed upon the faithful. So it is obvious then to those who still use their reason along with their faith just why Fatima has had to continue in such places as Garabandal and Medjugorje with a continuation of the same pleas. The time for Fatima compliance has definitely gotten too "Late"....now perhaps the continuing pleas for prayer, conversion and sacrifice can only be for the purpose of mitigation of what is now coming about when this past century should and could have been without the present horror. And the Church herself is reaping her own results for inaction and obfuscation.
Indeed there is still hope, at least for a major mitigation, according to Amorth... --- 'The interview digresses here from the topic of Fatima, but Zavala returns to it again later: “Forgive me for insisting on the Third Secret of Fatima: Did Padre Pio relate it, then, to the loss of faith within the Church?” Fr. Gabriele Amorth furrows his brow and sticks out his chin. He seems very affected. “Indeed,” he states, “One day Padre Pio said to me very sorrowfully: ‘You know, Gabriele? It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.’” “Oh my God! Some kind of Antichrist! When did he prophesy this to you?” I [Zavala] ask. “It must have been about 1960, since I was already a priest then.” “Was that why John XXIII had such a panic about publishing the Third Secret of Fatima, so that the people wouldn’t think that he was the anti-pope or whatever it was …?” A slight but knowing smile curls the lips of Father Amorth. “Did Padre Pio say anything else to you about future catastrophes: earthquakes, floods, wars, epidemics, hunger …? Did he allude to the same plagues prophesied in the Holy Scriptures?” [asks Mr. Zavala] “Nothing of the sort mattered to him, however terrifying they proved to be, except for the great apostasy within the Church. This was the issue that really tormented him and for which he prayed and offered a great part of his suffering, crucified out of love.” [says Fr. Amorth] “The Third Secret of Fatima?” “Exactly.” “Is there any way to avoid something so terrible, Fr. Gabriele?” “There is hope, but it’s useless if it’s not accompanied by works. Let us begin by consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, let us recite the Holy Rosary, let us all do prayer and penance …” [emphasis added]' --- I just think this interview, considering the faith, life witness, maybe even sanctity, of Fr Amorth and Zavala himself, and not to mention St Padre Pio, it is just all we need to know at this point - we don't even need to speculate about what sor Lucia said anymore or about what the text of the non revealed part of the Third Secret is.
A Tale of Two Fatimas May 13, 2010 By JOHN L. ALLEN JR. Fatima, Portugal In a sense, there have always been two Fatimas in the popular Catholic imagination. One is a gentle devotion focused on Mary’s appearances to three illiterate shepherd children, an icon of God’s special favor for the simple ones of the earth.Then there’s the other Fatima, a darker and harder-edged subculture focused on speculation about the errors of Russia, nuclear annihilation, and the great apostasies of the Catholic church after the Second Vatican Council (1962-65). That second Fatima, according to some, has often obscured and perverted the first. Writer and commentator Carlos Evaristo, for example, says feverish devotees can become so engrossed by the second Fatima that they almost have to be “deprogrammed.” “Unfortunately, many people who have a devotion to Fatima start with the regular devotions of the rosary and the First Saturdays, and then they get into some of the more exoteric literature,” Evaristo said. “Once you get people into that mentality, it’s very hard to get them back.” Evaristo runs several foundations in Fatima – including one launched by the late American Catholic layman and millionaire John Haffert, founder of the Blue Army – and publishes widely on the subject. Evaristo’s father witnessed one of the reported appearances of Mary in Fatima in 1917. Evaristo sat down with NCR on May 13, the feast of Our Lady of Fatima, during Pope Benedict XVI’s visit. Evaristo knows something about the hawkish Fatima subculture, having once been a protégé of Canadian Fr. Nicholas Gruner, the famed “Fatima priest” who publishes the Fatima Crusader and who for decades has promoted a hard-line reading of the Fatima revelations – insisting, among other things, that the version of the “Third Secret” of Fatima published by the Vatican in 2000 is incomplete, omitting details about the end of the world and a condemnation of modernizing currents in the church. In 1992, however, Evaristo broke with Gruner after publishing an interview with Sr. Lúcia Santos, the only one of the three visionaries of Fatima to have survived the influenza epidemic of 1918. In Two Hours with Sr. Lucy, Evaristo quoted Sr. Lúcia to the effect that: • John Paul’s 1984 consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary satisfied the conditions laid down in the Fatima revelations; • The “conversion” of Russia referred to in Fatima does not necessarily mean explicit conversion to the Catholic faith; • The “third secret” of Fatima did not have to be revealed in the 1960s, meaning that the Vatican had not been guilty of a decades-long cover-up. Each point was anathema to Gruner and like-minded Fatima devotees, who questioned the authenticity of the interview and speculated about Evaristo’s motives for publishing it. (All this unfolded in the wake of a 1992 symposium Gruner sponsored in Fatima as a rival to an official program put on the shrine, both of which attracted 60 bishops from around the world. Evaristo says that because of his split with Gruner, he ended up with thousands of dollars in debt for the event that Gruner refused to pay.) Today, Evaristo, who grew up in Canada, sees Gruner as an example of an exegetical free-for-all that’s long percolated in the Fatima underground. “What happened with the Fatima message is that Sr. Lucy related it but never interpreted it,” Evaristo said. “That left space for all sorts of strange theories.” Make no mistake – Evaristo is a true believer. For example, he accepts at face value Sr. Lúcia’s claim that John Paul’s 1984 consecration prevented a nuclear war that was set to happen in 1985. Had Pius XI adequately carried out the consecration, he believes, World War II would have been prevented. Yet Evaristo is insistent that the core elements of the Fatima message – penance, conversion, the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the promise of salvation for performing a series of “First Saturday” devotions – don’t need to be “sexed up” with end-time fervor or pervasive suspiciousness about Vatican plots. “The message of Fatima is already so majestic that it doesn’t need science fiction,” Evaristo said. “It doesn’t need hocus-pocus.” Evaristo says that much of the speculation promoted by Fatima devotees amounts to a kind of “brainwashing” premised largely on fear. “It was a perfect spirituality for the Cold War,” he said. “Unfortunately, a lot of people still live in the Cold War.” In broad strokes, Cardinal Sean O'Malley of Boston, who's in Fatima for the papal visit, echoed the point. "I’ve always been struck by the simplicity of the message – conversion and prayer," O'Malley told NCR. "It’s a devotion of the little people, and as a Franciscan, that excites me. This is where the anawim are. I think there’s something beautiful about that." Simplicity, O'Malley said, and not eschatological prophecy, is what Fatima should be about. https://www.ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/tale-two-fatimas
Good summaries. If Evaristo was credible, the Secretary of State's office would be trumpeting this "news" from the Vatican rooftops. They're not. Why? Because a bishop(s?) have condemned Evaristo's "evidence" as nonsense and not worthy of belief.
I do not know what the Real Third Message of Fatima is, but I know that the Church is to blame that the Rosary is not taught in Catholic schools or CCD classes. By observing what is going on in a world that is full of envy and hatred, where Jesus and Mary are not only not worshipped but are insulted I would say that we All should be worried about the Third Secret. I believe that the Consecration of Russia to her IMMACULATE HEART has not taken place. And who is to blame for it? The Vatican and us Catholics that do not make our voices heard.
Forum members seem happy to discard Mr Evaristo but I haven't noticed anyone comment on Dr. Frederick Zugibe who confirms the same message. I suppose he must be another 'liar' like anyone else who witnesses the truth. Here is some interesting information about him: http://www.crucifixion-shroud.com/bio.htm
I have been very struck by the simplicity of the message of Our Lady of Fatima as well. I go to First Saturdays and pray the rosary very much because of this message of hope. Even though I can not yet take part in the Sacraments. It moved me. I very much look forward to taking part fully.
