Benedict XVI dismisses supposed new Fatima revelations as “pure invention” and “absolutely untrue”

Benedict XVI dismisses supposed new Fatima revelations as “pure invention” and “absolutely untrue”

Posted by New Catholic at 5/21/2016 @

From the Holy See Press Office:

Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

Get AQ Email Updates

7 comments on “Benedict XVI dismisses supposed new Fatima revelations as “pure invention” and “absolutely untrue”

  1. Don’t know is this priest was lying or not but there is too much proof there was more to the 3rd Secret

  2. Francis: communion for divorced / living in sin … crickets.
    Francis: open acceptance of fag priests … crickets.
    Christians being slaughtered in middle east … crickets.
    Ragheads raping German girls … crickets.


  3. Congratulations to and self-absorbed Promethean neo-Pelagian Maike Hickson: you were heard!!

    You can complain about queer priests, sex-ed, and what not until you’re blue in the face, but Maike touched the “third rail,” as we say here in Boston. Good stuff.

  4. Skojec is having none of it:

    …As the Publisher of OnePeterFive, I wish to respond to this statement. One cannot take lightly a rebuttal from someone of the stature of Pope Emeritus Benedict. It is noteworthy that — to our knowledge — this is the first time since his abdication in 2013 that the Pope Emeritus has issued an official statement through the Vatican press office. With all that is currently troubling the Church, with all the confusion that now assails the faithful, this is the story which has prompted Benedict to break his silence. Clearly, this is a matter of unusual importance in the eyes of the Holy See.

    This statement is received by us with filial respect and love for the Pope Emeritus. And yet, it presents a problem. It conflicts directly with statements we have reported, and accuses us of false “atrribution” and “invention.” It also flatly contradicts our source, Fr. Dollinger, not offering the possibility even of a misinterpretation, but rather, an accusation that the events he recounts are completely fabricated.

    It is, in itself, a strangely perfunctory communique, and is presented in a way that prompts questions about its provenance and completeness. It is not a full, unabridged statement from Pope Emeritus Benedict; nor does it bear his signature. We are presented instead with pull quotes attributed to Benedict, and lacking the full context in which they originally appeared. Neither is it given to us to know who conducted this apparent interview with him, or how the questions were phrased.

    We are, in other words, asked to take it on faith that the statement contains the authentic, complete, and ratified sentiments of the Pope Emeritus on the matter.

    It is noteworthy that when we presented the words of Fr. Dollinger as reported by Dr. Hickson, we were accused by some of reporting unverifiable hearsay. But now we are given partial statements attributed to Benedict by an unnamed member of the Vatican communications staff — statements which implicate us, and also Pope Benedict’s old friend, Fr. Dollinger, in willful deception — and we are asked to believe that the matter is therefore settled?

    I hope you will forgive my skepticism.

    I have two questions about the semantics of this carefully-constructed statement. I believe they merit consideration.

    First, I would like to draw attention to the portion which states, “the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter ‘are pure inventions, absolutely untrue’.”

    Dr. Maike Hickson, who personally called Fr. Dollinger, attests to the truth of what she recounted from that conversation. Inasmuch as the Vatican statement accuses her of “attributing” statements which are “inventions” to Fr. Dollinger, it is false. She did not imagine the conversation she had with Fr. Dollinger, she reported it, and I stand by her testimony with full confidence in her integrity, both as a journalist and as a faithful daughter of the Church.

    Further, this morning Dr. Hickson telephoned Father Dollinger with the news of the Vatican statement, and at that time he again confirmed to her emphatically and clearly his previous remarks. In other words, he stood by his story.

    We must also reiterate that Dr. Hickson’s original conversation with Fr. Dollinger could not have been an “invention” inasmuch as it was not original in its content. It was not an attempt to break news, but rather to seek direct confirmation of a story that had already been attributed to Fr. Dollinger years ago. As stated in Dr. Hickson’s original article, “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…”

    The first published account of Fr. Dollinger’s testimony (of which we are aware) appeared in an interview with Fr. Paul Kramer in Fatima Crusader in May of 2009. It has since been referenced in various Catholic publications and venues. Anecdotally, one of our commenters on the Fr. Dollinger story recalled that as a Brazilian, he had heard this same story from a priest who was a student of Fr. Dollinger in 2003 or 2004. (Fr. Dollinger was the rector of the Institutum Sapientiae in Brazil, where he taught moral theology.) The only thing new about our report is the direct confirmation made by Fr. Dollinger (in German, his native language) to Dr. Hickson, which she sought in an attempt to gain clarity on the matter.

    Second, the communique quotes Pope Benedict as saying that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”. This is very cautious language, in a legal sense. If the Vatican has already published all that it intends to publish about the Third Secret of Fatima — even if there is more that they do not intend to publish — one would be technically correct in saying that “the publication is complete.” It does not in any way dispel the notion that a text written by Sister Lucia at the prompting of Our Lady as a means of interpreting the symbolic import of the Third Secret may yet exist.

    As I stated in my followup to our original article, one needn’t assume that the popes who have potentially concealed additional information relating to the Third Secret have lied to us; if they fear that the information it contains will cause severe damage to the Church in some way, they may be using broad mental reservation in their concealment of the portion of the text in question. There is also the issue, raised by Marco Tosatti, of internal questioning within the Vatican apparatus about which portions of an additional explanatory text, if it exists, can be attributed to Our Lady, and which to Sister Lucia. If there were sufficient doubt, one could conceivably conceal such a text while remaining technically correct stating that the full secret (ie., the portion that they were confident came from Our Lady) had been revealed. The legalistic sense, therefore, is noteworthy in this regard.

    I believe that beyond the questions raised by the text of the communique, there are other known facts which simply do not add up in this statement as attributed to Pope Benedict. The language is strong, even harsh, and it seems uncharacteristic in that regard. Benedict has a reputation for kindness and gentleness, and the source of the information he is refuting comes from a long-time friend – a friendship that his statement does not deny.

    The statement also appears to close the door emphatically on the question of any further undisclosed import in the Third Secret. And yet Benedict’s own position on this issue has seemingly evolved over the past 16 years, and it would be difficult to characterize it as a settled matter. …
    [long article – visit 1P5]

  5. [Touched a raw nerve (or as Cyprian puts it above, “the third rail”) at the Vatican]

    Posted by Mary Ann Kreitzer at
    SUNDAY, MAY 22, 2016

    Nothing gets the Vatican Press Office stirred up more than the Fatima message.

    [W]hy should we believe what comes out of the spin center at the Vatican? Fr. Thomas Rosica, English-speaking Vatican P.R. aide, has a distinctive m.o.: to attack (and even sue) writers and bloggers who express concern about the scandals emanating from the Vatican on an almost daily basis. His latest shotgun blast was so over the top he seemed to be foaming at the mouth:

    “Often times the obsessed, scrupulous, self-appointed, nostalgia-hankering virtual guardians of faith or of liturgical practices are very disturbed, broken and angry individuals, who never found a platform or pulpit in real life and so resort to the Internet and become trolling pontiffs and holy executioners!

    “In reality they are deeply troubled, sad and angry people….We must pray for them, for their healing and conversion!”

    Wow! Take that you rigid pharisees who only care about unborn babies!

    When this first came out my friends and I were joking about it because we assume we are among those being called “deeply troubled, sad and angry people.” This name-calling is the same strategy used by pro-aborts and homosexuals. It’s called “jamming.” You slam your critics instead of addressing their concerns.

    That’s exactly what is happening with the latest revelations about Fatima. It is becoming crystal clear that the Vatican has stonewalled for decades. As more evidence comes out, people continue to talk about it and write about it. Why? Because Mary’s message to the three little shepherd children represents one of the most important events of the 20th century that still impacts us today. The Blessed Mother doesn’t come down from heaven for nothing and make a miracle witnessed by 70,000 people and reported around the world. But those who express skepticism that all has been revealed must be discredited, even a personal friend of Pope Emeritus Benedict.

    Frankly, after studying these articles I think it’s obvious that the Vatican Press Office “doth protest too much.” Their story is unraveling. I stand with the folks at 1 Peter 5 when they say, “The filtered words of the Vatican Press office do not suffice” to discredit Maike Hickson’s conversation with Fr. Ingo Dollinger.

  6. From: [In re:] Vatican Press Office Cites Benedict Denying Private Statement on Fatima Secret

    Posted by Tancred at
    Saturday, May 21, 2016

    Edit: to put it bluntly, OnePeterFive has a lot more credibility than the Vatican Press Office. There’s no mention of Bishop Kurt Krenn’s allegation that Benedict said that the Secret wasn’t complete, either. If it really were Benedict, he probably would have denounced Krenn as well. Some might remember that we were one of the first to mention this issue in English way back in 2014:

    Third Secret of Fatima: Document is “Authentic” — But is it Compete?

    Text: Giuseppe Nardi
    Trans: Tancred
    Tuesday, January 7, 2014

    (Rome) In the coming days, the investigation of a handwritten document will be published which is attributed to Sister Lucia dos Santos. The Third Secret of Fatima, which was was made public as a handwritten document by Pope John Paul II and the then Prefect of the Congregation of the Faith, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger in the Holy Year 2000 is “authentic” and was written by Lucia dos Santos. She was the oldest of the three shepherd children at Fatima, where the Virgin Mary appeared in 1917. The nun died in 2005. Does the document published in 2,000 treat the full Third Secret?

    The handwritten document extant in 2000 was investigated by the paleographer Maria José Azevedo Santos of the Faculty of Arts of the University of Coimbra. In the document, the seer described the scene with the “bishop dressed in white” who suffers martyrdom along with many Christians on the summit of a mountain. A prophecy that John Paul II was referring to as the 13 May 1981 assassination attempt perpetrated on him in St. Peter’s Square. The Pope wrote about the happy deliverance as the intercession of Our Lady of Fatima.

    Paleographer Confirmed Authenticity of the Handwritten Document

    Maria José Azevedo Santos gave an interview to the official publication of the Portuguese pilgrimage site Voz da Fatima which will be released for the next issue on the 13th of January. The Catholic press agency of Portugal has made a preliminary report.

    “The Church has no doubt that it is an original document. This is an authentic document, which was written personally by Sister Lucia,” said Maria José Azevedo Santos. The scientist had the opportunity to examine the document last September in the archives of the Congregation. The absence of the signature of Sister Lucia takes away nothing of the authenticity of the document. A comparison of this document with the Third Secret with other handwritten texts of the seer and nun leaves no doubt. The scientific conclusion can therefore only be that this document was actually written by Sister Lucia, says the Paleographer.

    Critics Don’t Doubt the Authenticity, But Completeness

    Around the release of the Third Secret in 2000, there have been numerous polemics. However, most critics do not doubt the authenticity of the document, but are of the opinion that it was not published in full, but only a part.

    According to the main strand of criticisms, which, however, was also repeatedly rejected by the Vatican, there still must an additional paper in addition to the published sheet describing the appearance in the words of the Mother of God, with whom she explained the importance of vision to the shepherd children. This also explains the absence of the signature of Sister Lucia, because it’s probably located on another sheet at the end of the transcript.

    Cardinal Ratzinger: There is No “Official Interpretation” of the Third Secret

    As Cardinal Ratzinger explained the contents of the Third Secret in June 2000 at the request of John Paul II to the press, he put value on the finding that there is no “official interpretation” given by the Church suggesting it was Pope Wojtyla himself as the “bishop dressed in white” who was killed. John Paul II sent the then Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith, Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone Curia to Sister Lucia. At that time, the 93 year old nun had confirmed this interpretation of the Pope’s.

    Pope Benedict XVI:. Third secret is not yet fulfilled?

    A little later, Bishop Kurt Krenn of St. Pölten said that Cardinal Ratzinger, did not share the interpretation of John Paul II relating the vision to himself. In fact, Pope Benedict XVI then expressed himself very cautiously on his 2010 Portugal trip, and left open the possibility that the prophecy has not been fulfilled, or at least not completely satisfied.

  7. What appears to be going on is a semantic game of hair-splitting distinctions, drawing a line between “the Secret” (identified as the vision of the Bishop in white falling) and a clarification (“In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.”) which was never released (or was lost, stolen, or suppressed because it was embarrassing to the modernist agenda or the anti-Catholic Illuminati secret society initiates who infiltrated the hierarchy to impose the outrageous scandals which have disgraced the Church for four decades). There would also be some clericalism involved, proposing that the latter message which contained the words of Our Lady (“In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.”) was only intended for Pope John XXIII in 1960. The statement that the message would be “clearer” in 1960 does not make much sense if the Third Secret is only the vision.

    Since the dogma of the faith is, in fact, NOT being preserved very cohesively in certain countries other than Portugal now, at many “Catholic” universities, and is even questionable in Bergoglio’s Vatican, that leaves a lot of room for speculation.

    There is an easier approach to this controversy:

    Dear Pope Benedict,

    What happened to the piece of paper on which Our Lady’s words declared “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc.”? When some reasonable explanation is given for what happened to this part of the Fatima documents, perhaps some clarification will be possible. If a decision was reached not to release that, tell us why. Did it predict something more frightening than Europe being invaded by homicidal anti-Christian barbarians while a progressive modernist erodes Catholic teaching and spreads confusion from the Vatican? Or is that closer to the real Third Secret?

Leave a Reply