Then-Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

Then-Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima


Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts:

Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.

Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing.

Father Dollinger was ordained a priest in 1954 and served as secretary of the well-respected bishop of Augsburg, Josef Stimpfle. In God’s providence, I met this bishop once when I was not yet a Catholic, and I was deeply touched by his humility, warmth and welcome. He invited me to visit him once in Augsburg. When I was in the process of conversion, I did reach out to him, but then, to my chagrin, I discovered that Bishop Stimpfle had already passed away. (He is greatly missed.)

Father Dollinger was himself also involved with the German Bishops’ Conference’s discussions concerning freemasonry in the 1970s at the end of which came the statement that freemasonry is not compatible with the Catholic Faith.

He later taught moral theology at the seminary of the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross which belongs to the Opus Angelorum. Bishop Athanasius Schneider, auxiliary bishop of Astana, Kazakhstan, is member of that same Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross. Most importantly, Father Dollinger had Padre Pio (d. 1968) as his confessor for many years and became very close to him. Dollinger is also personally known to one of my beloved family members.

This sensitive information pertaining to the Third Secret, which has been circulating among certain Catholic groups for a few years now, has now been personally confirmed to me by Fr. Dollinger himself, at a time in history where the Church seems to have fallen into a pit of confusion. It might help explain, at least in part, why we are where we are now.

Importantly, it shows the loving mercy of the Mother of God to warn us and to prepare her children for this battle that the Church now finds herself in. In spite of the decision of those in responsible places within the Church, She has made sure the fuller truth would still be revealed and spread.

This information also might explain why Pope Benedict XVI, once he had become pope, tried to undo some of the injustices that are directly related with this Dollinger revelation, namely: he freed the Traditional Mass from its suppression; he removed the excommunication of the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX); and lastly, he publicly declared in 2010 in Fatima: “We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete.” He also added these words in an interview during his airplane flight to Fatima:

As for the new things which we can find in this message today, there is also the fact that attacks on the Pope and the Church come not only from without, but the sufferings of the Church come precisely from within the Church, from the sin existing within the Church. This too is something that we have always known, but today we are seeing it in a really terrifying way: that the greatest persecution of the Church comes not from her enemies without, but arises from sin within the Church, and that the Church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn forgiveness on the one hand, but also the need for justice.

With this statement, Benedict XVI effectively contradicted his own earlier words of June, 2000, where he had stated:

First of all we must affirm with Cardinal Sodano: ‘… the events to which the third part of the ‘secret’ of Fatima refers now seem part of the past’. Insofar as individual events are described, they belong to the past. Those who expected exciting apocalyptic revelations about the end of the world or the future course of history are bound to be disappointed.

All these actions of Pope Benedict XVI show that he must have known, in his conscience, that he somehow had to correct certain injustices and confusing ambiguities of the recent past. He defended the traditional Mass, he gave back dignity to the SSPX, and he re-inserted the importance of the Fatima message. Additionally, he also tried to deal with the mystery of Vatican II, although, it seems, in too vague of a manner.

In this context, it might be worth mentioning that my husband [Dr. Robert Hickson] and I were both together told by a priest who had met privately with Pope Benedict XVI that Pope Benedict himself considers Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre “to be the greatest theologian of the 20th century.” My husband and I both vouch for having heard these exact words directly from this priest — words which were allegedly spoken by Pope Benedict in the context of the pope’s proposal to re-introduce Marcel Lefebvre’s teaching more widely into the Catholic Church.

While we contemplate the gravity of the cumulative omissions and delays concerning the actual release of the full Third Secret, and when heaven had asked us to do it – namely, not later than 1960 – we are grateful to the Holy Ghost that He has seemingly made possible now this affirmative telephone conversation today on the Feast of Pentecost. May the true message of Fatima – together with the recent revelations of Fr. Brian Harrison and Dr. Alice von Hildebrand about what it also contains – spread far and wide and thereby help free all faithful Catholics from any bondage to half truths and deficient loyalties. May we all freely and fully adhere to the full Truth of the Message of Mary’s Mercy – which will surely, under grace, help to set us free!

Get AQ Email Updates

14 comments on “Then-Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

  1. Bad council!? Bad Mass!?

    Holy cow! (Hey GPM, pass the salt. I mean, it’s believable, but why have we never heard this before?)

    • My better half: Isn’t this exactly what we wanted to hear?

      I’m restocking on popcorn.

      • [“Sit back and watch” (or rather, read)]

        New Fatima Report Raises More Questions than it Answers

        MONDAY, MAY 16, 2016
        Posted by Oakes Spalding at


        The recent article by Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive is another fascinating piece from one one of the premier Catholic websites. The above post title is not a criticism of Dr. Hickson or the site, obviously. Rather, they deserve nothing but thanks for continuing to break important stories. But that doesn’t make things any less . . . frustrating.

        Here is the heart of the piece:

        Today, on the Feast of Pentecost, I called Fr. Ingo Dollinger, a German priest and former professor of theology in Brasil, who is now quite elderly and physically weak. He has been a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI for many years. Father Dollinger unexpectedly confirmed over the phone the following facts:

        Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.

        Father Dollinger gave me permission to publish these facts on this High Feast of the Holy Ghost and he gave me his blessing.

        Fatima conspiracy people (and I guess I’m one of them) believe that the Church has been infiltrated by . . . let’s call them the bad guys. Now of course all knowledgeable and faithful Catholics would agree with this to some extent. The Church has always contained bad guys. The only question is how pervasive it is and how far up it goes. Fatima people believe it goes all the way to the “top”–although what even that means is debated.

        Though the implications of this are horrific, it doesn’t in and of itself raise any logical questions. Bad guys will be . . . bad guys. Obviously they will have an interest in undermining the Church, in suppressing the truth about Our Lady’s words and in (forgive me) screwing with people’s faith.

        But what of the good guys? Pope Benedict is one of them, or at least we would hope so. And the above would seem to confirm that. If you believe that the above is true or at least partly true, then Benedict would seem to have at least some interest in making the truth known. After all, he allegedly told Fr. Dollinger about it.

        The question I would want to ask Dollinger is why he didn’t ask Ratzinger/Benedict at the time why such important information wasn’t revealed publicly? Why only reveal it in private? It seems like such an obvious question. And I can imagine possible answers that would be reasonable. But I have not seen any answers.

        Why did Ratzinger/Benedict not publicly reveal what he knew? Given the awfulness in the current Church–which must have seemed even worse to him given what he knew about the unrevealed secret–why did he then step down? Or putting that aside, why doesn’t he reveal the rest of the secret now? Why doesn’t the Pope Emeritus announce a press conference and just do it? I am of course not being critical of Benedict per se; only noting the obvious incongruity. It’s as if there’s a fourth secret (or a fifth) that asks the good guys in the know to act their parts in a sort of play, biding their time. Why? Until when? And of course everyone seems to be following some sort of tacit agreement to not go public (though it seems okay to give the occasional hint to old friends or card-carrying Fatima conspiracy authors or whomever).

        I do not think I will ever become a sede or go back to being a non-practicing quasi-agnostic, but this almost seems calculated to make me throw up my hands and do so. Is it some sort of test of faith? And what of the countless souls lost in the interim?

        Yes, I know mortal men are not supposed to know everything. God never promised that we would or should. But He did promise that we would be given enough information. Didn’t He?

        • From Vox Cantoris on Sunday, May 15, 2016 @

          Fatima secret not all released – alleged by a friend of Pope Benedict XVI – Secret warned of “a bad Council and a bad Mass”

          Maike Hickson at OnePeterFive has a blockbuster story today. She spoke personally to Father Ingo Dollinger a close personal friend of Joseph Ratzinger and a former seminary rector in Brazil.

          Mrs. Hickson writes:

          “Not long after the June 2000 publication of the Third Secret of Fatima by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger told Fr. Dollinger during an in-person conversation that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published! “There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger said. He also told Dollinger that the published part of the Secret is authentic and that the unpublished part of the Secret speaks about “a bad council and a bad Mass” that was to come in the near future.”

          Why did Father Dollinger give this interview today? This was not the first time that he revealed this information as you will read shortly. What does he know about the current state of affairs and Pope Benedict XVI? Does he feel he is soon to die and wants to clear his conscience? Is he, by doing this, attempting to force what can be done in the blogosphere to raise this matter and focus on it demanding action once and for all?

          The late Father Nicholas Gruner spent his life on matters pertaining to Fatima, the Third Secret and the Consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Many others have also. Books have been written about it and most, with any knowledge of the issues around Fatima, do not believe the truth has been fully released. Even Pope Benedict alluded to this as Mrs. Hickson states in her article.

          Yet, this is not the first time Father Dollinger has spoken out on these matters.

          Father Paul Kramer writing in the Fatima Crusader in June 2009, wrote [enhanced with complete text of the original]:

          The Secret Warned Against Vatican Council II and the New Mass
          An Exclusive Fatima Crusader Interview with Father Paul Kramer

          From the Fatima Crusader Issue 92 May 2009

          “…Question: Do you see a connection between the Third Secret of Fatima and the introduction of the New Mass?”

          “[Fr. Kramer] Sister Lucy of Fatima, said that there would take place a diabolical disorientation in the Church. And there is nothing that could do more to bring that about than a liturgical revolution that would enshrine alien principles into a seemingly Catholic liturgy.
          As a matter of fact, there is more substance to the question of a diabolical disorientation. I am referring to the part of the Third Secret of Fatima that has not yet been revealed. I know this to be a fact because I have personally spoken with a German theologian and a seminary Rector who is a longtime close fiend of Pope Benedict.
          When Pope Benedict was still Cardinal Ratzinger, around 1990 he revealed to his friend that in the Third Secret of Fatima Our Lady warns not to change the liturgy: literally, not to mix extraneous foreign elements into the Catholic liturgy. Now, of course, with the new Mass of Pope Paul VI, that is exactly what was done. Elements of Protestantism, both in symbolism and in the wording of the liturgy, were brought into and mixed into a Catholic framework to the extent that the makers of the new Rite flatly stated that this is no longer the Roman Rite, it is a new creation.”

          “…Our Lady also warned that there would be an evil Council in the Church that would cause great scandal. And of course, it was the documents of Vatican II-the Constitution on the Liturgy-which gave the impetus for Pope Paul VI to reform the liturgy in such a disastrous manner that caused such a loss of faith and confusion in the Church.”

          “…Now after this took place, the German theologian who I am referring to went back to the country in South America where he was Rector of a seminary and he explained to a young priest what Cardinal Ratzinger had related to him. And precisely when he related that Our Lady warned against changing the Mass and there would be an evil Council in the Church, the both of them saw a plume of smoke coming up from the floor. Now it was a marble floor. This could not be anything of a natural phenomenon. Both the young priest and the old German Rector were so impressed they drew up a dossier and sent it to Cardinal Ratzinger.”

          “…The elderly German priest, Ratzinger’s long-time personal friend, took note of the fact that when this vision of the Third Secret was published it did not contain those things, those elements of the Third Secret that Cardinal Ratzinger had revealed to him nearly ten years earlier. The German priest -Father Dollinger- told me that this question was burning in his mind on the day he concelebrated with Cardinal Ratzinger. Father Dollinger said to me, “I confronted Cardinal Ratzinger to his face” And of course he asked Cardinal Ratzinger, “how can this be the entire Third Secret? Remember what you told me before?”
          Cardinal Ratzinger was cornered. He didn’t know what to say so he blurted out to his friend in German, “Wirklich gebt das der etwas” which means “really there is something more there,” meaning there is something more in the Third Secret. The Cardinal stated this quite plainly.”

          “Question: This is an amazing story. Is Father Dollinger a credible witness?

          [Father Kramer] I can say this much: We’re talking about an elderly priest, a long-time personal friend of Pope Benedict, a man who was a long-time personal acquaintance of St. Pio of Piertrelcina [Padre Pio]. In fact, he told me he had gone to confession to Padre Pio 58 times. This is a man who for many years was the Rector of a seminary in South America; a man who is highly esteemed, who is of great reputation in the Church.

          I would also point out that in the diocese where he worked what I have said about the Third Secret, what Cardinal Ratzinger revealed to him, was common knowledge among the young priests who were seminarians and deacons at the time this man was Rector. They all know the story that Cardinal Ratzinger had told him.”

          “As I have mentioned, they had even put together a dossier and sent it to Cardinal Ratzinger. So he is a man of great credibility, worthy of credence; a man of great seriousness who is not given over to making up fabulous stories, or exaggerating self-importance. The man had no need of such things; he’s a man of utmost credibility.”

          Posted by Dr. Chojnowski

          The time has come!

          The Pope must tell the Catholic faithful the truth.

          Has the Third Secret of Fatima been released in its fullness?

          Did Heaven, through Our Lady, warn John XXIII about the Council and changing the Mass?

          Is this the reason that the full Secret was not then and has not now been released? (“It is not for our time,” John XXIII was alleged to have said)

          Why did Pope Francis visit Archbishop Loris Capovilla, the 90 plus year-old former Secretary to John XXIII who also present at the opening of the Secret. Why was he made a Cardinal at the last consistory?

          If this is true; if this is what the Third Secret of Fatima contained, the implications are catastrophic for the Church. It confirms that the Second Vatican Council and the Novus Ordo Missae was a fraud and a direct attack on the Holy Catholic Church straight out of Hell. It calls into question much of what has been done over the last fifty years! It calls into question the canonisations and beatifications of three Popes!

          If Dollinger’s claims are legitimate, it explains many things including the renouncement of the Office of Peter by Joseph Ratzinger. Was he planning on going further down the road of truth and disclosure? Was he trying to repair the damage, as Hickson surmises, with Summorum Pontificum and the lifting of the excommunications on the SSPX bishops and more that we are unaware of? Was he threatened in some way and forced to resign the papacy? Was he driven from Office?

          It’s time for answers. The salvation of souls is at stake.

          If the Pope, Cardinals and Bishops of the Church do not deal with this, Our Lord Jesus Christ will and it won’t be a Church of Nice.

          • Here’s the issue of Fatima Crusader:

            This report is seven years old. And I missed it. Dang. I’ll put the popcorn back in the pantry.

            The smoke coming out of a marble floor is an interesting tidbit.

            I hope the “third secret” gets released while there’s still someone alive who saw it in the 60’s to confirm that it’s genuine. This trickle-out business — and the whole “third secret” speculation industry — is best left alone, IMHO.

  2. There is a part of the Fatima prophecies that includes the warning that “entire nations will be annihilated.” There had been speculation in the past that perhaps this referred to nuclear attacks during the Cold War. Has anyone considered that “entire nations” could “be annihilated” from within by the hostile demographic shifts currently happening in Europe? The secrets of the Fatima prophecies then are not about the past but events happening now. While a progressive modernist pope has his head in the sand, civilization as such is under attack. Yet the Third World socialist banana republic leader of the secular socialist regime in the U.S. is focused on gender-bending bathrooms. Anyone still want to claim that Russia did not spread her errors? What were the “errors” of atheistic Communism?

    • That “annihilated” warning is frightening. I don’t think it can be understood as any less than a horrible catastrophe with loss of life and any semblance of a unified nation remaining. Has this been fulfilled? I suspect not yet. But now the pope is accelerating the demise.

  3. The genocide against Christians in the Middle East could qualify as being “annihilated” in some sense. Mosul. Picture that in Europe or even in a major U.S. city, if such trends of barbaric anti-Christian “multiculturalism” continue. Secularists are playing fast and loose with civilization in Europe. Don’t think the elite powers are too smart to prevent that from happening here unless there is a major turnaround. 42%+ of polled voters still want Hillary. Do the math. There needs to be a public debate and frank discussion about demographics and civilization. What are secular progressives thinking they will do in Europe or even London as vastly outnumbered minorities in postmodern jihadist culture? They better start thinking about it.

  4. The Fatima Controversy is a Mirror of the Church

    BY STEVE SKOJEC ON MAY 18, 2016 @

    On Sunday afternoon, we published a report about Cardinal Ratzinger’s alleged admission that there is more to the Third Secret of Fatima than was revealed by the Church in 2000. Since that time, the post has been viewed nearly 70,000 times by visitors from around the globe — a testament to the relevance of this topic, almost a century later. It has been re-reported in German, Portugese, Spanish, French, Polish, and Italian publications. Among the Italians who have mentioned it are no less noteworthy figures than Roberto de Mattei, Marco Tosatti, and Antonio Socci — the first having written one of the definitive critical accounts of the Second Vatican Council, the latter two having both published books on this topic.

    It is on Socci’s commentary — left on his official Facebook page — that I would like, for a moment, to focus my attention. I do not have a good English translation of it, so for the purposes of this blog post, I will work with the imperfect machine translation provide by Google rather than troubling one of our very busy translators in Italy. We should be able to understand, more or less, its meaning:


    In 2006 I published “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” (Rizzoli), where I presented the (many!) Evidence of a not yet published the Third Secret of Fatima, on the day.

    Bid Today’s article OnePeterFive , commented by Tosatti, who brings a testimony that would confirm the existence of this part of the Secret not yet published.

    But invite you to consider everything very carefully. I have many doubts and many doubts about the phrase attributed to Ratzinger …. I do not seem credible … [SS: He’s saying he does not find the attribution credible, in his opinion]

    Moreover, it seems to me that he – beyond any words spoken in private – has already spoken clearly and officially as Pope Benedict XVI, in pilgrimage to Fatima on May 13, 2010.

    On that occasion he stated that the Message of Fatima was not concluded with the events of the twentieth century, but which also concerned the near future and this message warned not only to persecutions of the Church from its external enemies, but also from great trials and persecution from within …

    The Pope added:

    “We are realists in expecting that evil always attacks, attacks from within and without, but which always forces the goods are present and that, eventually, the Lord is stronger than evil and our Lady is for us the visible, motherly guarantee of God’s goodness, which is always the last word in history.”

    It’s a rough version, but you get the gist. This is, as far as it goes, a fair thing to say. It is a warning for caution, a suspicion that Father Dollinger’s statement is incorrect. It is not, in any conceivable sense of the term, an argument to the contrary. When it comes to Fatima, unfortunately all of us who question the official story have been relegated to speculation, suspicion, and the testimony of those closest to the people with a front-row seat to these events and the information that surrounds them. Often, all we have to go on is our gut. Our intuition. And I will not fault Mr. Socci for expressing his. In fact, I’m grateful that he is bringing this conversation to a wider audience. All that should concern us is the fuller truth behind the secrecy.

    In a an ironic twist, the same day that Socci published his comment, I received his book, The Fourth Secret of Fatima, in the mail. I have always had a healthy respect for the major approved Marian apparitions of the 19th and 20th centuries (Lourdes, Fatima, and to a lesser extent, Akita), and an innate sense that they are true. That said, I have not studied them in great detail. My purchase of the Socci book was intended as part of a larger effort to begin doing just that.

    But as I opened it this morning, I found that Socci makes — immediately, in his introduction — the precise argument that animates my willingness to publish statements like those of Fr. Dollinger. Socci speaks of how, in 2005, just two days after the death of Sister Lucia, he sat down to read an article about the secrets discovered in her room. This article was penned by the respected Italian journalist, Vittorio Messori. Socci’s response to this was as follows:

    I reacted to the new article by Messori with a journalistic polemic in which I defended with a sword the rightness of the Vatican (ungenerously above all toward the traditionalists), attacked the writer and liquidated all of his “dietrologies” (An Italian idiom for conspiracy theories that look behind [dietro] events for hidden plots) concerning unpublished documents. Certainly, I knew that after the fateful revelation of the Third Secret in 2000, doubts, suspicions, rumors, and critical observations had begun to circulate within the curial environment, and that they had found public expression in traditionalist circles. But I had never paid attention to the traditionalist publications because I believed that they originated from a burning disappointment over a Secret that negates all of their “apocalyptic” forecasts.


    The traditionalists’ disputes with the Vatican on the revelation of the Third Secret (of June 26, 2000) have never been analyzed, confronted, and confuted by the ecclesiastical party and are unknown in the lay world — perhaps because their publications circulate almost exclusively in their own environment.

    To me the choice by the Curia and the Catholic media to ignore and say nothing about them did not seem right, especially after having read the extremely harsh tone of their accusations against the Vatican.


    Analyzing this literature — besides that circulating on the Internet — it occurred to me that throughout the Fatima affair, there are so many questions without answers as to color it a “detective story.” Perhaps the most fascinating and dramatic detective story of our times because it involves not only the Vatican, great powers and their secret services, as well as certain obscure apparatuses of power, but also each one of us, and the proximate destiny for all humanity and for the Church.


    I tried…to understand the Vatican’s position in order to counter the accusations of the “Fatimists.” I investigated the concrete and reliable elements of criticism in the traditionalist literature, unfortunately buried in a mass of theorems, invective, absurdity, and unconfirmed hearsay. I caught certain of their contradictions, dismantled some theses, but in the end I had to surrender — thanks also to the revelations of an authoritative witness who furnished invaluable information. I had not expected the discovery of a colossal enigma, of a mystery that spans the history of the Church of the 20th century, something unutterable, something “chilling” that has literally terrorized different Popes who succeeded each other in mid-century, something that certainly regards the Church, but also the proximate future of us and our brothers.

    Socci begins his narrative with a concession: that the evidence was such that it “contradicted [his] initial convictions, and surprised and impressed” him. There is something more going on that has not been revealed. There is an import to Our Lady’s message at Fatima that has caused it, in part, to be hidden, avoided, and shrouded in secrecy by the highest powers in the Vatican.

    I look forward to the rest of his book, even if his presentation of the facts contradicts my own initial convictions. But what I am certain not to be disabused of is the very idea that we are being deceived in some way; that there is something Our Lady (and by extension, almighty God) thought important enough to warn us personally about. Something that, for human reasons, has been kept concealed.

    It is in part for this reason that I do not want the discussion to remain circulating “almost exclusively” in the traditionalist “environment.” We have sought to confirm information that was already in that environment in the hopes it would reach new audiences. It is the message that matters far more than the messenger.

    Some Catholics forcefully reject the implication that there is more to the story than we have been told. They do not like this assertion because they think it makes popes into liars. I don’t believe that this is a logical consequence of secrecy. It is possible for broad mental reservation cover a multitude of sins. No doubt fear — fear for the reaction of the faithful to what is contained in the full secret — plays a role in the suppression of information about the warning. But even if it does make them out to be liars, is avoiding such an unfortunate thought more important than the discovery of the truth? There is no charism of the papacy that prevents those who hold it from speaking falsehoods. And in any case, such a sin can be forgiven.

    The confusion and debate I have seen in our comment boxes over the past few days makes clear why it is so important that the full truth be made known. Whenever the impression is given to people that they are being misled, or that those leading them are not trustworthy, it is human nature to begin filling in the missing data however possible — even if by imagination. It is this tendency that gives rise to conspiracy theories. And wherever multiple conflicting accounts exist — put forward by credible witnesses on all sides — the conditions are perfect for wild speculation of this kind.

    Only the whole story has any hope of putting this controversy to bed. People are hungry for this information. Nothing we’ve ever published has garnered so much attention so quickly. Sadly, we are forced to wait, and to hope, and even to pray that someone like Pope Emeritus Benedict will come forward to set the record straight and to explain away the discrepancies. And the odds of this happening are decidedly slim.

    All of this is, in reality, a facet of the larger problem in the Church.

    I had a conversation with my wife today, and she, as a convert, expressed her frustration at the way Catholics fight amongst themselves. “I’m used to Protestants,” she says, “who are far more inclined to help each other.”

    I reminded her that in contrast to this or that Protestant denomination, ours is a universal Church in chaos, struck by Satan and thereby divided. It is almost impossible to believe how so many otherwise very intelligent Catholics are unable to recognize that the post-conciliar Church has brought about the near-total gutting of Catholicism. It is an unqualified, unmitigated, disaster. The number of people who profess to be Catholic and still believe in essential Church teaching is such a tiny minority, it’s staggering.

    The problem with Fatima — just as with the larger Church — essentially boils down to a crisis of confidence. The Church was once eminently credible, but through the actions of those who have led it these past decades, it has squandered much of its hard-earned regard. (Changing the unchangeable tends to do that.)

    There are those who oppose Church leadership because they have strayed too far from the mission Christ gave. There are those who oppose Church leadership because they haven’t, in their opinion, strayed far enough. Oddly, these two groups (for brevity, let’s call them traditionalists and progressives, respectively) tend to see the problems in the Church the same way. Both groups agree, for example, that Amoris Laetitia opens the door to communion for the divorced and remarried. One sees this as a catastrophe, the other as a positive and long-overdue development, but there’s little quibble between them about the new reality on the ground.

    It is the third group in the Church, therefore, which is the most troubling. These are the extreme loyalists, those so dedicated to their confirmation biases that they refuse to see what is staring them in the face. Colloquially, we can call these the “conservatives”, though it’s an odd turn of phrase when one considers that the only thing they seek to conserve is the new, late 20th-century ecclesiastical paradigm, all while typically glossing over the conflicts this presents to the Church’s previous 19 centuries. I call this phenomenon, “the Magisterium of the now.” This is the group that believes (to the extent they have been taught the truth of it) what the Church believes; they follow the pope and love him (to a fault); they attempt to grow in a true spiritual life, they receive the sacraments, they honor the moral teachings of Catholicism, they teach their children the same. These are good people who love God, but they are deeply deceived. If a pope or a council changes a thing, in their view, then that’s the new reality, and we just have to go with it and find a way to re-interpret our understanding of the Church “in light of” that new thing (rather than vice-versa). A good example of their attitude can be found in a comment I recently saw on Facebook from Dan Burke, Executive Director of the National Catholic Register:


    This is a snapshot of a much longer conversation, but I think it stands on its own merits. This is the kind of inscrutable thinking the “conservative” Catholic mentality leads to. The idea that anyone who wants to restore what was good and retract the recently-added bad from a divinely inspired — and thus, immutable — religion is nonetheless somehow harmful or out of tune with reality. Later in the discussion, he doubled down: “Looking back is a practice of wound-lickers,” he said, “who are paralyzed in the past and do nothing to work to bring about the kingdom of God now.”

    It’s a contemptuous statement, and it, too, is deserving of contempt.

    How can the Church continue with such a dichotomy in her midst? How can Catholics continue to be so diametrically opposed in their fundamental understanding of what Catholicism is and what Catholics are supposed to believe, and how they are meant to worship? How can those who recognize the severity of the wounds in the Mystical Body of Christ work together with those who think they are merely superficial, or perhaps even an improvement?

    Meanwhile, as so-called “conservatives” clash with so-called “traditionalists,” the so-called “progressives” are using every opportunity they can to exploit their new found power and expand it, with the aim of producing “irreversable reform.”

    Ultimately, we all need to be able to trust that Rome has our best interests at heart. For “progressives,” this is something to aim for, even if they’re repeatedly told “no”. For “conservatives,” it is impossible to conceive of any other reality — even if it’s right in front of their nose. For “traditionalists,” it’s complicated; we believe that God has our best interests at heart, and that He leads His Church, but that it has fallen into the hands of bad shepherds. We believe He will eventually sort it out according to His own plan. But as we look around us and see the incalculable damage that has been wrought under the watch of those who should have protected and preserved our treasures, we are filled with righteous anger and fear that it will only become worse. We understand the boundaries that the progressives fail to acknowledge (ie., that the Church has an authority that comes from God and that there is no democratic revolution to be had); we also recognize the reality that the conservatives turn a blind eye to (ie., that infallibility and the promise that the “gates of hell will not prevail” is not a blanket guarantee of good leadership free from egregious error in matters of discipline and governance.) But we are left with a decided inability to trust those responsible for placing us in this dilemma, awaiting a divine solution when no human one seems possible.

    To continue to deny this situation is foolhardy. As I said in response to a commenter earlier today:

    The post-conciliar Church is a massive and demonstrable failure. It represents a deviation from the mission the Church had for nearly 2,000 years. It called into question — and continues to do so — a number of fundamental doctrinal points that previous popes and the entire Magisterium agreed upon.

    The Catholic Faith under the leadership of the conciliar and post-conciliar popes has taken humanly irreparable damage. Belief in the Real Presence is decimated, as is (unsurprisingly, considering the previous fact) Mass attendance. Most surveys indicate over 90% of Catholics engage in contraception, and a similar number support same-sex relationships. Church doctrines on topics as diverse as religious liberty, ecumenism, inter-religious dialogue, the necessity of the Church for salvation, the indissolubility of marriage, the just use of capital punishment, just war theory, and the prohibition against those not living in the state of grace receiving Holy Communion are all under attack from within.

    The Church has been infiltrated, and yes, it is a satanic detour from what Our Lord intended and the Magisterium had always been at pains to preserve.

    Which brings us, in this moment, back to Fatima.

    The popes of the past half century, whose job it was to preserve and defend the Church from this devastation, are the very same who have assured us that the Fatima message (which they originally suppressed, against Our Lady’s wishes, in 1960) has now been fully revealed. A message that, according to multiple credible accounts, predicted the very destruction that took place on their watch.

    It doesn’t take a veteran detective to find motive there. Those who ask that we simply believe we have been told the whole truth in this matter ask too much.

    Fatima matters because it is inextricably intertwined with the ecclesiastical crisis it so narrowly pre-dates. It is often dismissed as only private revelation, but that is not entirely accurate. The nature of the warnings that apparitions like Lourdes and Fatima contain make them something more. As Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote, “They are great miracles – in part miraculous healings, in part supernatural warnings – but they represent no additions whatever to Revelation in the strict sense of the word, which terminated with the Apostles. Not private revelations, as in the case of the holy mystics, for their messages were directed to all. The persons who experience them have more the character of a mouthpiece…”

    A mouthpiece for Our Lady, who was, in turn, a mouthpiece for our God. As I look to the confusion and chaos around me, driven straight through the heart of the Church, I want to hear everything they have to say that could help us sort out this mess.

    I want to know the whole Fatima story. I want to never have a reason to doubt our bishops and popes again. That seems a lofty goal, all things considered, but clearing up the questions around the Third Secret would be an incredibly important first step.

  5. re: “as well as certain obscure apparatuses of power”

    Secret societies? (i.e., the Illuminati and globalist power cabals)

    Quote: “I’m used to Protestants,” she says, “who are far more inclined to help each other.”

    Protestantism, by its nature, rationalizes the lack of a central teaching authority or orthodoxy.
    True Catholics help one another. We were taught to do that in the old days by the Society of Jesus, the Hibernians, the Knights of Columbus, and the traditional nuns. It has been the modernist Spirit of Vatican II with its relativism that has introduced division, dissent, and factionalism (of heresies). Modernists are a type of Protestants. They attack traditional orthodox Catholic doctrines and customs.

  6. Interview: Vatican Expert Marco Tosatti on Fatima

    BY MAIKE HICKSON ON MAY 19, 2016 @

    Editor’s Note: Marco Tosatti, Italian journalist and Vatican expert, wrote in Italy’s La Stampa concerning Dr. Maike Hickson’s recent article on Fr. Ingo Dollinger, Cardinal Ratzinger, and the Third Secret of Fatima. Dr. Hickson then reached out to Tosatti — himself an author of a book about Fatima — who agreed to the following interview.

    Maike Hickson (MH): You have written already in 2002 a book on the Third Secret of Fatima, entitled Il Segreto Non Svelato (“The Unrevealed Secret”). The title itself indicates that you had already then come to the conclusion that the full Third Secret of Fatima was not published in June of 2000. Is this true? Do you believe that the text that was actually published in 2000 is an authentic part of the Third Secret of Fatima, and if yes, why?

    Marco Tosatti (MT): Yes. I think that what we have read is authentic; it seems to remind us that Sister Lucy in person acknowledged the authenticity of the pages we have seen. And precisely from what we have seen we can still have some doubts.

    MH: What are the main reasons why you came to the conclusion that the full Third Secret has not yet been revealed?

    MT: In the document we have seen, at a certain point the narration stops with an “et cetera.” First, it seems strange to me that the Virgin would use these words. And then we have never seen the part of the Secret to which the “et cetera” is related.

    Then there is the problem of the envelopes; it would be too long to enter in this issue now, but there are problems either with the measure of the envelopes sent from Portugal to Rome, and then with the envelope on which Pope John XXIII wrote his personal comment on the Secret, after having read it.

    And then there is a conversation had by a scholar, Solideo Paolini, with Archbishop Capovilla, who was the personal secretary of Pope John XXIII. Solideo Paolini declared:

    “I met Archbishop Loris Francesco Capovilla on July 5th 2006 in Sotto il Monte [name of a town]at his house. Since this very first meeting, during our private conversation, he made me implicitly but unequivocally understand something about the existence of two texts, or at least about certain things not being revealed regarding the Third Secret. When I asked him the question [about the Secret], he literally answered: ‘No, look, since it was officially revealed, I must abide by what was declared in the official documents, even if I may know something more.’ And at that point, when he said those words ‘even if I may know something more,’ he smiled ironically. Since I was there, I was able to see from his gestures that it was clear: there is something more than what was revealed during the Holy Year 2000 [by the Vatican]. But what Archbishop Capovilla said to me during a phone call was an even more dead giveaway. When he sent me his answers [by mail to questions I had sent to him], I called him on the phone, and he gave me the answer to a question of mine which literally was: ‘So, Your Excellency, as regards the two dates in which Pope Paul VI (would have) read the Third Secret, March 27th 1965 and June 27th 1963, which are confirmed by different sources, are they both correct because, in fact, there exist two texts regarding the Third Secret?’ I asked him this point-blank. He remained silent for a moment, thinking about it, and then he said to me, literally: ‘Precisely so (Per l’appunto)’. This is the most explicit confirmation that anyone could give.”

    These words seemed to me a confirmation of what I had written in my book.

    MH: You yourself reported recently on my own report about Father Ingo Dollinger who claims that then-Cardinal Ratzinger told him that he did not publish the whole secret. Would you have any possible explanation as to why they did not publish the full text? Could there be some kind of mental reservation involved?

    MT: I will tell you what the personal secretary of Saint John Paul II [Archbishop Stanislaw Dziwisz] told me once, when I asked about Fatima. He answered: “The problem is to understand what the Virgin said, and what Sister Lucy said.” My personal opinion is that all the problems related to Fatima, the Popes, the Vatican are centered on this question. Did Sister Lucy add, even involuntarily, something to the message? And what? I think that is the element which has made so many people in the Church wary about the global phenomenon.

    MH: Do you yourself consider it important still for us Catholics today to find out the full truth about the Third Secret?

    MT: Yes, of course. When you have a revelation supported by such facts….

    MH: What is your own finding about the possible content of that part of the Third Secret that is still unpublished?

    MT: Really, I have no idea.

    MH: Do you have any idea of how we could achieve that Rome finally releases the full secret?

    MT: I think that, as far as the Holy See is concerned, the problem is closed. I do not expect in my lifetime to see anything more on the part of the Vatican.

  7. The 3rd Secret: An Imagined Conversation


    Old Pope: I would like to release the third secret.

    Cardinals Sodano & Bertone: Holiness, you can’t do that. The nature of those texts would undermine faith in the Church itself and the new springtime that has been the goal of your entire pontificate.

    Old Pope: I worry about this too, but still…

    Cardinals S&B: Holiness, can we even be sure that the words of the Virgin are legitimate and were not influenced, even inadvertently, by Sr. Lucia? Your blessed predecessor of Holy Memory Pope John XXIII repeatedly gave voice to these concerns and that is why he and all the subsequent Pontiffs refused publication.

    Old Pope: But if the Blessed Virgin wishes it, I would like to comply…

    Cardinals S&B: But Holiness, if this message could be misunderstood by the faithful, undermine faith in the magisterium and in the Council, all for words that we could not be certain are are actually the words of the Blessed Virgin, wouldn’t that be highly imprudent.

    Old Pope: Yes, that is a concern. But…

    Cardinals S&B: But Holiness, can you say for absolute certain that these dire and terrible words of the letter of Sr. Lucia are without a doubt the actual words of the Virgin without any influences of the seer herself? Can you vouch for this certainty when none of your predecessors could not?

    Old Pope: I don’t… I am not sure… But the Virgin…

    Cardinals S&B: Holiness, we understand well and share your desire to fulfill the request of the Virgin. But what of the other text, that of the vision? We are all certain that that vision is a legitimate part of the secret and it would not raise any of the immediate concerns of that dreadful letter. And since the vision clearly pertains to the terrible trials you endured holiness, we agree that we should release that document. But since the other document could be so damaging and you cannot possibly vouch for its authenticity when all your predecessors could not, we cannot even be sure it is part of the legitimate secret. If it is not, your holiness, it could do untold damage to the Church. It could even provoke Schism, Holiness.

    Old Pope: I, uh, I don’t.

    Cardinals S&B: Holiness, to fulfill your desire to comply with the request of the Holy Virgin, we should release that which we can be sure is legitimate, the vision. The other part cannot be considered a legitimate part of the secret…

    Old Pope: But what about the good sister? She says…

    Cardinals S&B: Do not worry about Sr. Lucia, your Holiness. She will be made to understand that the final arbiter of prophecy is the Pope and she is an obedient child. So let us do what you want and release the legitimate part of the secret, Holiness. But we must all be in agreement that the other text is not authentically part of the secret.

    Old Pope: I suppose that is the best that can be done under concrete circumstances. Let it be so…

  8. Possibilities:

    “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, but in other lands a great apostasy in the Church will begin in the hierarchy during the confusion and diabolical disorientation following a heretical council of the Church. The holy sacrifice of the Mass will be altered and there will commence a great falling away from the faith, as disgraceful and grotesque scandals afflict the clergy and the smoke of Satan fills the sacristies and chanceries. Entire seminaries and dioceses will be annihilated. Paris, Cologne, and London, will have much to suffer as the observance of the faith itself seems to disappear from the public realm.
    If my requests continue to be ignored, a modernist progressive from South America, sloppy in theology, proud in error, and deceptive and dissembling on moral doctrine, will ascend to the Holy See of St. Peter, issuing weather forecasts, and receiving Leonardo DiCaprio , Patti Smith, Bernie Sanders, and Joe Biden at the Vatican, etc. [Here the children gasped in horror as images of Joe Biden receiving the Laetare Medal at Notre Dame were shown as if in a movie….]”

  9. La Stampa raises questions about the official party line from the Vatican on Fatima: two parts – the vision and the Blessed Virgin’s words interpreting it (two envelopes?):

    Fatima: the prophecy, the envelope, the missing words, and the denial of Ratzinger

    The Pope Emeritus has branded as “pure inventions” the latest speculations on the third secret, according to which the Holy See has not published everything and in which the missing part speaks ill of the Council and of the liturgical reform. But it is certain that the matter will not be dismissed

    Andrea Tornielli
    Vatican City
    May 23, 2016

Leave a Reply