Exactly. So whatever errors, biases or agendas Evaristo had for which that bishop condemned his writings applies equally to Frederick Zugibe or any other Evaristo surrogate.
Thanks Carol. I'm under a bit of pressure these days and haven't much time for reading linked articles or watching videos. I accept the three points you reference from Arby's post which are the basis of my belief that the 1984 consecration was accepted in Heaven. I also believe that the assassination attempt was a wake up call to a Pope whom God knew had enough faith and devotion to the Blessed Mother to recognise what he needed to do. God picked the right Pope and rewarded him (and us) for his sincerity. I just don't believe that we are anywhere close to the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I certainly don't see the Blessed Mother being honoured in the Church today. If anything, the opposite is the case. My impression is that we got a stay of execution thanks to St. John Paul's deep faith and devotion and his sincere wish to do as Our Lady requested. If the Triumph is coming, it looks like it will be sudden and happen after a lot of turmoil within both the Church and the wider world. There's no denying that what Sr. Lucy said about the Fatima message changed over the years. David quoted John Allen. John Allen (not surprisingly for him) conveniently overlooks the fact that it was Sr. Lucy herself who linked the Fatima message with the Book of Revelation among other apocalyptic type warnings. Wasn't it Sr. Lucy who said that most souls are lost due to sins of the flesh? Wasn't it Sr. Lucy who said that many marriages are not of God? Wasn't it Sr. Lucy who said "one faith, one Catholic Church" or words to that effect? Didn't Pope John XX111 make disparaging remarks about prophets of doom which were widely accepted as a dismissal of Sr. Lucy's attempts to get the Church to pay attention to the Fatima message? What are we seeing around us now? The Church hierarchy behaving as though we had no pope between the papacy of John XX111 and the current Pope. Sins of the flesh not only multiplying exponentially but being declared good and sources of grace by none other than successors of the Apostles. Atheists and population controllers appointed to positions of influence in the Church (and that's not counting the heterodox clergy). On top of all that, we have a Pope whose pronouncements and actions have more of a whiff of his rear end than the sacredness of Scripture. As for the world outside the Church? Wars and rumours of wars are the order of the day. Death is the prevailing culture. Death is the answer to unwanted pregnancy. Death is the solution for debilitating illness or old age. That's Satan's domain - the exact opposite of what we would expect from the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Where do you see progress towards the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary?
My pet peeve with Evaristo is the large role he played in thwarting Fr Gruners approved meeting with Sr Lucia back in 92.What a jerk. A meeting that should have ended much controversy.
I agree. I am a terrible writer I suppose. I need to clarify, I do not see progress towards the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary but I think that the 1984 consecration must have put the world on course towards the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. I think that it caused a change which we have not yet witnessed the fruits from yet. This is the only way that I can make sense of all of this.
You write very well. You didn't say that you could see progress towards the Triumph. There's no doubt that the 1984 didn't go unrewarded. The likelihood of Russia becoming a Christian nation is far greater now than the chances of Christianity growing in any European country. Sr. Lucy was reported to have told someone that the conversion will be to the Russian Orthodox Church. I suppose I expected that the Triumph would be more than Russia's conversion coinciding with the demise of the faith in the countries where people had prayed for the conversion. That's the reason I questioned whether there was clear evidence of Sr. Lucy saying that the Triumph began with the assassination attempt. Perhaps I expected too much.
One of the seemingly difficult things to qualify is what does the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart actually mean, what does it look like. Obviously, to those who think the consecration and triumph took place from the 1984 Consecration to the World had very insignificant expectations from this event. So small that only .ooo1% of the world believes that the world has gotten any better since 1984 and no one would suggest what we have today is the result of rightful consecration. I have no doubt when Russia is rightfully consecrated, in the specific manner that our Lady of Fatima indicated, that it will bring a recognition to Our Lady of Fatima that the whole world will know came from God through her. It will be known as the Era of Peace. God would stand for nothing less than this. Otherwise it's prophecy had very little expectation and Our Lady of Fatima meant little in the end. I believe it will happen soon and it will only take a one major event to change the status quo. It will have to be so bad that even the bad bishops will want to consecrate Russia to save mankind from total self destruction. After all our Lady did say, "it will be late".
I see that vision of Pope Leo XIII that allowed for the 100 years of diabolical attempts against God's own as a very important starting point in this timeline. This Pope did not know just when this 100 year period would begin or how, but he knew that there would have to be some material mechanism to cause this grave interference with the Divine Will for His creation....which continues to be that no one be lost. In this grand plan from the beginning/the original garden, Satan was told that it would be through the efforts of this Woman that would finally crush his head and he would wait for this. So enters this Woman with the powerful promised miracle of the sun at Fatima. She gives a possible grave view of the future and that awaited "mechanism" of attack, named Russia, an unknown entity to at least the immediate audience there. And using that "mechanism" she speaks to the outcome for the world if this mechanism is not stopped. She then provides the means to "immediately" stop this possible future of horror from even beginning. I mean, this series of instructions ends in October of 1917 only to have the concrete formation of this Russian mechanism of attack to begin in the next month, November, 1917, with the formation of Russian Atheistic communism. While Satan was given permission to attempt to thwart the Divine Will for no longer than 100 years....and then "no more",.....those attempts could have immediately been "hammered" through that same Woman with the cooperation of the Church since God always works his desires through His Church. As she said "to prevent this" do thus and so. So, with the cooperation of her children and her Church, she would have led us as she always desired to the 2nd Pentecost within a period of peace rather than war and hatred and diabolical disorientation......as she had previously been the one to have led her Son's disciples to that first Pentecost. I think all of that desired preparation to take place in a period of peace was to help more souls enter into the era of her Son's next coming/interim coming/Eucharistic age....fulfillment of the Our Father. For this age of living in the Divine Will to come about, Satan has to be conquered....for that period promised.....and the Mother was to have the recognition for fulfilling that promise of crushing his head....recognized by the whole world. If this Fatima plan had been easily put into action soon after the Fatima requests, how many more souls would have been prepared for the coming Warning and how many souls would not have had their hearts so hardened that they would refuse the grace of forgiveness offered in this Warning and be lost?? Only when and if it wasn't accomplished as requested would Satan have his way through the instrument of Russia, spreading its errors out to all. Well, I think we have seen which scenario we have allowed to happen. But this period granted to Satan will come to an end...."and then no more". That period, if taken literally, would come sometime within this coming Nov. and Satan will lose this power over this attempt. Those who have given their souls over to him should then be in a panic as they feel a new kind of desperation for his former power. It all seems to be coming together in "this instant of instants". Fatima with Mary's concerns for so many souls falling into hell because they have no one to pray for them was assuaged by the new devotion of salvation....Divine Mercy..... in the approval/acceptance of the Image through which all Mercy flows for these times. This was specifically for the sick and dying in order to have Christ stand between them and the Father's justice at the time of death. When it is said in the Divine Will it covers all those of the past as well as the future. While we and the Church fail God and His Mother, He seems to always find more ways to answer her pleas for her children. That is why our hope and refuge now comes only through the Immaculate Heart. Then again, how much does the Church spread this devotion .... and even after it was made a feast of the Church? Was perhaps the experience of the miraculous sun at Fatima, terrorizing the people within a terrible rain storm, but resulting in a cleansing of a sort of the people and the wet muddy earth, be a symbol of another future fearful celestial event, involving the sun or a "second sun" to arrive for another terrorizing moment of begging for forgiveness just prior to the greatest action of Mercy....the Warning?
Hmmm...who to believe? Evaristo or Cardinal Burke? fatimaperspectives.com Perspective No.1065 7-9 minutes Cardinal Burke Repeats: Russia Must Be Consecrated Explicitly to the Immaculate Heart by Christopher A. Ferrara August 8, 2017 In an exclusive interview with The Wanderer, Cardinal Raymond Burke has once again called for the explicit consecration of Russia, by name, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary as Our Lady of Fatima requested the better part of a century ago (1929) after promising Sister Lucia at Fatima exactly a century ago (1917) that She would return to make that request when “the moment has come.” In the course of the interview, in which the Cardinal also discussed the “final battle” over marriage and family now underway within the Church (thanks to the Phony Synod), as well as in civil society, the Cardinal was asked the following question concerning the allegation that Sister Lucia confirmed that the ceremony performed by John Paul II on March 25, 1984, from which any mention of Russia was deliberately omitted, somehow sufficed to fulfill the request for consecration of the very place not mentioned: “Q. According to Documents on Fátima… Sr. Lucia wrote on August 29, 1989 that Pope St. John Paul II’s consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984 fulfilled Our Lady’s request. At the Rome Life Forum about three months ago, you urged the Catholic faithful to ‘work for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary.’ What does the consecration you are calling for entail; is it more than the Pope simply naming Russia explicitly?” First of all, as for the claim that Lucia “wrote” in 1989 that a 1984 ceremony deliberately failing to name Russia was a consecration of Russia, The Fatima Center’s article “Chronology of a Cover-Up” explains: “In September of 1985, in an interview in Sol de Fatima magazine (published by the Blue Army in Spain), Sr. Lucia confirmed that the consecration still had not been done, because the 1984 ceremony did not mention Russia, and the world’s Catholic bishops did not participate. Later in the year, Cardinal Edouard Gagnon acknowledged in another interview that the consecration had still not been done as requested. He later objected to having his remarks published, though he did not deny making them…. “For many years, Sr. Lucia’s cousin, Maria do Fetal, publicly quoted Sr. Lucia as saying the consecration had not been done. Maria do Fetal continued to maintain this position until mid-1989, when she suddenly reversed herself, in accordance with the Vatican “instruction” revealed by Fr. Coelho.” Moreover, no one disputes that Sister Lucia insisted that the failed 1982 ceremony also conducted by John Paul II, which likewise failed to mention Russia or enlist the world’s bishops, did not fulfill Our Lady’s request. Indeed, no less than L’Osservatore Romano published the following testimony by Lucia’s priestly friend and confidant Father Umberto Maria Pasquale, S.D.B. on May 12, 1982, some two months after the 1982 ceremony: “I wanted to clarify the question of the Consecration of Russia, in having recourse to the source. On August 5, 1978, in the Carmel of Coimbra, I had a lengthy interview with the seer of Fatima, Sister Lucy. At a certain moment I said to her: ‘Sister, I should like to ask you a question. If you cannot answer me, let it be! But if you can answer it, I would be most grateful to you, for you to clear up a point for me which does not appear clear to many people ... Has Our Lady ever spoken to you about the consecration of the world to Her Immaculate Heart?’ - ‘No, Father Umberto! Never! At the Cova da Iria in 1917, Our Lady had promised: I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia ... to prevent the spreading of her errors throughout the world, wars among several nations, persecutions against the Church ... In 1929, at Tuy, as She had promised, Our Lady came back to tell me that the moment had come to ask the Holy Father for the consecration of that country (Russia)’...” So, what changed between the time of the first failed ceremony in 1982 and the second in 1984? Nothing, except the abrupt reversal dubiously attributed to Sister Lucia, who never once was allowed to address the public directly on the matter. At any rate, in answer to The Wanderer’s question about whether the Consecration entails “more than the Pope simply naming Russia explicitly,” Cardinal Burke gave this telling explanation: “It is exactly that; it is as simple as that, namely, to fulfill Our Lady’s request exactly as she asked for it. There is no question that Pope St. John Paul II was keenly aware of the seriousness of the situation, of the need to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. He intended precisely to do that on March 25, 1984. For my part, I believe he would have done it explicitly except at that time it was argued that in order to promote a friendlier relationship with the Eastern Bloc countries, the name of Russia should not be mentioned in particular. “I believe it was the Holy Father’s intention — that he did, in fact, consecrate Russia. However, it is also my belief that, given the situation in which we find ourselves today, the consecration of Russia must be done explicitly, exactly as Our Lady requested (while in no way denying John Paul’s intention to include Russia when he consecrated the world to her Immaculate Heart). My intent is not to level accusations against anyone, but rather in response to the present time which is so grave to urge the need to carry out what Our Lady asked exactly as she asked it. “To repeat, the consecration I called for is in no way to call into question what Sr. Lucia said about St. John Paul II fulfilling what Our Lady asked for. It is simply to respond to that request one more time and consecrate Russia in an explicit way. At the same time, it is the right and duty of the faithful to ask Pope Francis to do this consecration….” With all due respect to the Cardinal, while confirming what is obvious — that a consecration of Russia needs to mention Russia rather than deliberately failing to mention it — he appears to be trying to have it both ways: that John Paul’s intention to consecrate Russia sufficed, according to the alleged remark by Sister Lucia (contradicted by her own published testimony), but that Russia should nonetheless be consecrated by name. That is akin to declaring that the removal of a gall bladder sufficed for an emergency appendectomy, because the nurse said so, but that the appendix should be removed just in case. Think of the Consecration of Russia as the ecclesial equivalent of an emergency appendectomy, urgently needed to prevent a fatal poisoning of the entire body of the Church, which no reasonable observer of the ecclesial scene can deny is being threatened at this very moment. That the Consecration will finally take place is certain, for the Church is indefectible and the divine will cannot be thwarted but only (by God’s permissive will) impeded for a time by human perversity. What is not certain is how much agony the Church will have to suffer before the divine remedy is, at long last, applied.
Er, sorry Mac, you've got it wrong again. I quote from the interview with Dr Zugibe: S.M. Do you feel that there was anything in the conversation with Sr. Lucia that was lost in the translating? Dr. Z. Absolutely no! The person that translated for us was amazing. He was brought up and educated near the Canadian border, speaks perfect American with absolutely no accent, is an author, a writer, and does instantaneous translations. His Portuguese according to Sr. Lucia's physician was also impeccable, without accent [...]. Also, Sr. Lucia's physician, with whom I have become friends (we also correspond with each other), also speaks English and also confirmed what Sr. Lucia said during our conversation with her. However, as people tend not to follow up links, I think I need to post the full interview with Dr Zugibe which I will do in the next post.
Here is the interview with Dr Zugibe. Steve Mahowald (S.M.). It has been a common view for many years that Sr. Lucia has been silenced in both the matters of the "secret" and the "promise" of Fatima: Was that your impression prior to your journey to Portugal? Dr. Zugibe (Dr. Z). Well, prior to that I had heard, through the writings of one particular priest, through these long dissertations, that — Sr. Lucia's aunt — or someone, had said that it was not done, uh, or, never done properly. It wasn't done right. It was supposed to be done with all the bishops all over the world. S.M. Let me draw you back to the question — we'll get to that, but prior to your going there, was it your impression that she was under silence in these matters, before you traveled to Portugal? Dr. Z. No, I was under the impression that Sr. Lucia had verified to one particular priest, and all the rest of them, that it wasn't done properly. S.M. Why did you go there? Under what circumstances were you allowed to visit Sr. Lucia at her cloister? Dr. Z. I was invited to Coimbra by the sisters, to give my talk on the crucifixion. And also, I had written there. My son had a medical problem a couple of years before, and asked for Sr. Lucia to pray for him, and Sr. Lucia's niece, through a friend of mine who knew her sisters, took the request there, and they even asked for a picture of him. And she prayed for him, and he did very, very well. So I felt, at the same time, that I wanted to thank Sr. Lucia for her prayers. I went there and gave a full talk on the crucifixion to Sr. Lucia and the group there. In fact, Sr. Lucia had open arms out to me when I went there. I gave the talk — it was really beautiful because we had a nice conversation. In fact her doctor, a young woman, whom I had met — I inquired, I said that I would love to take some pictures with Sr. Lucia, but I understand that it is not allowed. So she asked the mother superior. The mother superior relayed my request to Sr. Lucia. Sr. Lucia came out and said, "I don't mind at all." She let us take a bunch of pictures, and we talked about different things. Then I went ahead, at that particular time, and I said, "I don't know if it's off-limits here, but I've been hearing a lot of different rumors and a lot of different ideas — I'd like to know about this, Sister. I'd like to ask you a question. Was the consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary done? I heard it wasn't done — that it wasn't done right and so forth. That she [Sr. Lucia] had indicated that it was not done " Sr. Lucia looked both me and my wife right in the eye, and she said, "It was done! The Holy Father willed it. It was done, and you can tell your friends that it was done." [...] Sister said specifically, right to me and my wife, "It was done!" And that's the reason why I have related it [...]. Especially after we were conversing. I could not get over this woman, who was 95 at the time — this was in April [2002—editor] — she is 96 now — smart as a whip! Extremely smart. She made rosaries — she even gave us rosaries she had made. And also, she has a book called Calls — it is fantastic — you have to read the book [...]. We really made out well with her, and we had this conversation. She was really sweet, she opened right up to my wife and I. Maybe it was because of the crucifixion lecture, I don't know; that I had shown how Christ suffered and so forth, and told her that we were grateful for her prayers, and she opened right up. There was not even any kind of a gesture to say differently, in other words, she didn't make any kind of gesture—she just said that it was properly done — and "You can tell your friends;" she said [...]. S.M. Doctor, this not about your credibility — how would you answer those people who claim that the person presented to you was not Sr. Lucia? Dr. Z. Such a claim would be totally preposterous. I will tell you why it was Sr. Lucia. A number of years ago, I was asked — one time someone asked me — they said they had met Sr. Lucia and wrote an article about Sr. Lucia — a fellow by the name of Carlos Everisto. He wrote several books over there, of sights in Fatima. He had written a letter to the chief of police and said that he had written an article about Sr. Lucia, and had a picture of himself with her. He thought that it was not Sr. Lucia. He wanted to know if the chief of police knew any forensic specialist who could compare that picture with known pictures of Sr. Lucia. He came to me, and I went ahead and did a complete study, called an anthropomorphic study, of the photos showing that it was definitely the same person. I'm very, very familiar with what Sr. Lucia looks like after looking at a whole big bunch of pictures — I know exactly what she looks like, in all ways. Then, I also had a long conversation with Sr. Lucia's doctor. And Sr. Lucia's doctor said that she would be there when I gave the talk [...]. The picture is taken with her behind the cloister grille, as they would not allow her to come out. For my part, I went there to give a lecture on the crucifixion. Being able to meet with Sr. Lucia just happened [...]. S.M. Was there any other conversation you had with her? Dr. Z. She told us all kinds of stories about when she was young, and about her family life, and everything else — we spent over two hours with her... . The reason I asked about the consecration is because it seemed to be a debatable thing: Some say it was done, others say it wasn't done. And she just marveled at this Pope. You can tell when you are talking with her that she just loves our present Pope. This is the one that did it right — this Pope. S.M. Did she say that? That he did it right? Dr. Z. Yes. I even spoke with the other sisters. I wanted to be sure. I wanted to be clear. I had no intention of coming over here and then publicizing any of this until after I was asked about it by Fr. Andrew, who is my very close friend. He later mentioned it on EWTN. Then I would bump into people who are donating all sorts of money to those whom the sisters have asked not to return to their convent, nor to bring any pilgrims there. They don't believe it [...]. Here's my whole thing. I go to Mass and Communion every single morning — I've been doing it for 22 years. S.M. So do I. We go the Traditional Latin Mass. Dr. Z. That's beautiful, I'm glad to hear that. That's great. S.M. The thing about this is, okay, that I have believed for a long time that the consecration wasn't done, because there have been no results. In other words, according to the promise, when the consecration was done, Russia would be converted and there would be peace. Dr. Z. I asked about that [...]. I said, you take a situation like Russia. Russia has prostitution, and the criminal aspect of things there is so prominent, and everything else. If Russia was consecrated, why? The answer was this: [The sisters] said that the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary gave people the right to free will, to make their own choice. In other words, it opened it up so that they could go to church, they could go to Confession, whereas before they were under a regime where there was only a fear of going to church, a fear of religion. The consecration opened this up so that they were free to believe, and that no matter in what country, no matter wherever you are, you are free —you have free will to save your soul — to do what you want. That was opened up to them. Not a great or big holiness that you could see — people have the wrong impression of that.... Over there, they were not allowed to have the same freedom of religion — but this opened up a freedom of religion where they can make their own free choice.... S.M. Dr. Zugibe, I have just a couple more questions: If we could move back to the consecration for a moment — did Sr. Lucia indicate the involvement of the bishops in the consecration? Dr. Z. No. The exact protocol involving the bishops was not discussed. This was not important because she emphatically stated without hesitation, "It was done! The Holy Father willed it to be done and it was done and tell all your friends." This clearly told all of us that it was done properly. S.M. Do you feel that there was anything in the conversation with Sr. Lucia that was lost in the translating? Dr. Z. Absolutely no! The person that translated for us was amazing. He was brought up and educated near the Canadian border, speaks perfect American with absolutely no accent, is an author, a writer, and does instantaneous translations. His Portuguese according to Sr. Lucia's physician was also impeccable, without accent [...]. Also, Sr. Lucia's physician, with whom I have become friends (we also correspond with each other), also speaks English and also confirmed what Sr. Lucia said during our conversation with her. S.M. When you were with Sr. Lucia, did you observe anything which would indicate any impairment of Sister's faculties — perhaps because of her age? Dr. Z. Sr. Lucia was 95 years old and mentally acute [...]. We were amazed because she answered our questions and told us stories of her youth with great clarity. She and the other sisters inquired about different stories they had heard about our children that had been previously told to them I was informed that her recent book, Calls From the Message of Fatima, was essentially written by her and it is excellent. S.M. Thank you so much, Doctor, for the time, and for your candor. It has been a pleasure to visit with you about this. I can't impress upon you how important I believe this is. Dr. Z. Thank you. It has been my pleasure. http://www.ewtn.com/library/issues/zuglucia.htm
What part did I get wrong? Evaristo is the translator spoken of here by Dr Z. Though he does seem a little embarrassed to mention him by name.
Sister Lucy’s purported statements to Dr. Zugibe are, of course, no more reliable than the translator on whom the doctor was forced to rely. As the doctor has since confirmed, the translator was Mr. Evaristo. Mr. Evaristo is a rather mysterious individual, who immigrated to Portugal from Canada many years ago and has somehow managed to gain unfettered access to Sister Lucy, when everyone else needs permission from the Vatican. Evaristo has no college degree, nor any certification as a translator. He calls himself a "historian" and a "journalist," even though he has neither a degree in history nor any known staff position with an established journal. At one time he worked for Father Gruner’s apostolate in Portugal as a low-level administrative assistant. In defending the credibility of his "interview" with Sister Lucy, Dr. Zugibe quotes copiously from Evaristos English-language "transcript" of Sister Lucy’s reputed 1992 recantation of her testimony concerning the consecration of Russia. But, faced with mounting public criticism of the absurd statements attributed to Sister Lucy in the 1992 "transcript", Evaristo was forced to acknowledge that it was a fabrication. In a fax to the headquarters of Father Gruner’s apostolate, Evaristo admitted: "The dialogue was not recorded at the time. No notes were taken — Although I may have a bad memory, this reconstruction of what was said was not largely made by me. I only typed it."7 But, as we noted in The Remnant’s last issue, the only other Portuguese-speaking witness to the conversation, Father Francisco Pacheco, advised Father Gruner’s headquarters as follows: "I was the official translator of this meeting, which lasted two hours. I categorically affirm that the booklet entitled Two Hours with Sister Lucy published by Carlos Evaristo contains lies and half-truths and is not to be believed. When I was first shown a copy in January 1993, I immediately contacted Carlos Evaristo and I personally told him not to publish this booklet because of the gross lies that he had put in it … I trust that this will end the confusion caused by Carlos Evaristo and his notorious pamphlet."8 Evaristo dug his own grave even deeper with his 1993 pamphlet entitled It All Began with Two Hours with Sister Lucy, wherein he republished the same 1992 "transcript" with the following laughable disclaimer: "This is not a literal translation. It is a conceptual translation. The language used in this document is based on the actual Portuguese dialogue …."9 That Evaristo at first presented a "conceptual" reconstruction to the public as a verbatim transcript of his personal "translation" is all we need to know about Mr. Evaristos reliability as a translator for Sister Lucy. Yet this is the very translator on whom Dr. Zugibe and The Wanderer rely in telling us what Sister Lucy now believes. Hiding the Translator’s Name When the Editor of The Remnant, Michael Matt, inquired of Mahowald why he had not revealed the name or supplied the credentials of Dr. Zugibes translator, he replied: "I did not find it germane." Not germane? In a court of law a translator must take a separate oath swearing to the veracity of his translation, precisely because of the potential for mischief with translators. In this case, we are dealing with a notorious Fatima revisionist who has already admitted to one fake translation of Sister Lucy’s purported remarks, yet neither Mahowald nor The Wanderer saw fit to mention his name. How is it that Carlos Evaristo, of all people, just happened to be hanging around the convent at Coimbra for the informal Q & A following Dr. Zugibe’s lecture? How is it that Evaristo just happened to be the translator for the key question to Sister Lucy concerning the consecration of Russia? And how is it that Evaristo and the doctor were allowed freely to question Sister Lucy on this matter, when she is otherwise treated as if she were in the Federal Witness Protection Program? Even Archbishop Bertone had to obtain permission10 from Cardinal Ratzinger to conduct his own highly suspicious secret interview of the seer, revealed two months after the fact, of which the public was given 44 words on the topic at issue out of approximately 14,000 words of conversation. (No transcript of the Bertone interview has ever been made available.) Yet Evaristo, we are supposed to believe, can waltz into the convent and "translate" Sister Lucy’s off-the-cuff remarks, for a lay visitor, on a subject Rome treats like a state secret of the Vatican. Clearly, what took place during Dr. Zugibe’s visit to the convent was Evaristo’s third attempt — very probably with Vatican clearance — to persuade the world that Sister Lucy has privately recanted her consistent public testimony concerning the consecration and conversion of Russia.
If you want to discuss these issues you need to keep up David. You are letting Evaristo make a fool out of you. I'm actually feeling embarrassed for you. These arguments are 15-25yrs old and have long been put to bed.
Yes, I did not realise Mr Evaristo was the translator of Dr Zugibe's interview so I apologise for my comment. However, all this highlights the absurdity of the criticisms and demonisations of Evaristo by the Gruner followers. We are now supposed to believe that Dr Zugibe has been totally misled by a translator who lies throughout his translations of Sister Lucia's words even as late as 2002! And somehow, the nuns of Sister Lucia's convent are lying when they publish Sister Lucia's letter of 1984 which totally confirms everything Evaristo tells us....
Apology accepted. Just don't mess with new member Macadamia.He promises to rip to shreds anyone who can't back up their statements.
Woops, my mistakes betray my old age but this allows me to include the letter in question which is actually dated August 29, 1989. (1984 is of course the year of the Consecration) Was the Consecration of the World made as Our Lady had asked? On October 31,1942 in a letter (sent to her) from His Holiness Pius XII: They asked me then if it was done as Our Lady had asked; I said no, because it lacked the union with all of the bishops of the world. After this, Pope Paul VI made it on May 13,1967. They asked me if it was done as Our Lady requested. I answered no, for the same reason; it lacked the union with all the bishops of the world. It was made again by Pope John Paul II on May 13, 1982, They asked me then if it was done. I said no. It lacked the union with all the bishops of the world. Then, this same Supreme Pontiff John Paul II wrote to all the bishops of the world asking them to unite with him and he gave orders for the image of Our Lady of Fatima to be taken from the Capelinha and brought to Rome, and on March 25 1984 - publicly and in union with all the bishops of the world who wished to unite - made the Consecration as Our Lady requested. They asked me then if it was made as Our Lady had asked for it, and I said yes. Since then it is done. Why was this demand of God that this consecration be made in union with all the bishops of the world? Because this consecration is a call to unity of all Christians - the Mystical Body of Christ - whose head is the Pope, the only true representative of Christ on earth, whom the Lord has entrusted the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This union depends on the faith in the world, and on love, which is the bond that unites all of us in Christ, as He prayed to the Father: "As you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me... I in them and you in me, that they may become perfected in unity, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them, as you have loved me" (Jn 17: 21-23). As we see, the union depends on Faith and Charity to be the bond of our union with Christ, whose true representative on earth is the Pope. (Pathway under the Gaze of Mary - https://www.amazon.com/Pathway-Under-Gaze-Mary-Immaculate/dp/0578158639)
I am pretty certain that both of these articles were already posted on MOG but it helped me to read them today once again. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/b...for-consecration-of-russia-to-immaculate-hear https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinio...rkes-historic-call-for-consecration-of-Russia "Let us consecrate ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and work for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Certainly, Pope Saint John Paul II consecrated the world, including Russia, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on March 25, 1984. But, today, once again, we hear the call of Our Lady of Fatima to consecrate Russia to her Immaculate Heart, in accord with her explicit instruction. The requested consecration is at once a recognition of the importance which Russia continues to have in God’s plan for peace and a sign of profound love for our brothers and sisters in Russia." Cardinal Burke, May 19, 2017 I am with him, Cardinal Burke. He doesn't want to debate over the past but he wants to confirm what we can do now to help improve the state of things. Russia could not be named in 1984 because it no longer existed, so Pope Saint John Paul II consecrated the world, that is the past. Now looking at the future and how bleak it looks, Cardinal Burke is correct to, once again, call for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and for all of us to consecrate ourselves to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. PS- This is the new interview, http://thewandererpress.com/catholi...fending-christ-and-his-church-with-true-love/ . It is only Part 1, they state Part 2 will come out next week.
