Fatima and the Simple Explanation of the Crisis in the Catholic Church

The Remnant Newspaper ^ | December 5, 2025 | Robert Morrison

[ebb tide]

Fatima and the Simple Explanation of the Crisis in the Catholic Church

It is very simple: we are facing the spiritual disorientation foretold by Our Lady of Fatima because “Vatican II demolished piece by piece the scaffolding constructed by our Lord, and what remained standing [was] bulldozed during the subsequent pontificates.” By rejecting the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes, John XXIII and the Council’s architects brought about the “suicide of altering the Faith” foretold by Pius XII.

A few years before his election to the papacy, Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (the future Pius XII) sounded a grave warning based on his understanding of the messages of Our Lady of Fatima:

“I am worried by the Blessed Virgin’s messages to Lucy of Fatima. This persistence of Mary about the dangers which menace the Church is a divine warning against the suicide of altering the Faith, in Her liturgy, Her theology and Her soul. . . . I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject Her ornaments and make Her feel remorse for Her historical past. A day will come when the civilized world will deny its God, when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted. She will be tempted to believe that man has become God. In our churches, Christians will search in vain for the red lamp where God awaits them. Like Mary Magdalene weeping before the empty tomb, they will ask, ‘Where have they taken Him?’”

Clearly Cardinal Pacelli was familiar with the messages of Our Lady of Fatima and considered them credible. If we were able to go back in time and discuss with him what “the suicide of altering the Faith” might look like, it seems entirely plausible that he would describe something very similar to what we see today. As disturbing as the current crisis is, then, there is some consolation in the fact that Pius XII and others understood that there would be a day “when the Church will doubt as Peter doubted,” but they did not despair. Through the Blessed Virgin Mary, God warned us so that we might be strengthened for these times.

The obvious conclusion is that the Third Secret related to changes in the Church that would take place during Vatican II.

Decades later as pope, Pius XII published his 1950 encyclical warning against errors threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine, Humani Generis. Humani Generis was the last in a long line of forceful papal encyclicals warning against the errors that have become so prevalent since Vatican II:

• Mirari Vos, Pope Gregory XVI’s 1832 encyclical on liberalism and religious indifferentism
• Qui Pluribus, Blessed Pius IX’s 1846 encyclical on faith and religion
• Quanta Cura, Blessed Pius IX’s 1864 encyclical condemning modern errors (accompanied by the Syllabus of Errors)
• Libertas Praestantissimum, Pope Leo XIII’s 1888 encyclical on human liberty
• Pascendi Dominici Gregis, St. Pius X’s 1907 encyclical on Modernism
• Notre Charge Apostolique, St. Pius X’s 1910 encyclical on the Sillon
• Oath Against Modernism, St. Pius X’s 1910 oath to be sworn by clergy
• Mortalium Animos, Pope Pius XI’s 1928 encyclical on religious unity
• Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII’s 1950 encyclical on false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine

We could add other encyclicals to this list, but these suffice to condemn essentially all of the errors plaguing the Catholic Church today.

In his Humani Generis, Pius XII explained why the condemnations in these encyclicals remain binding:

“Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: ‘He who heareth you, heareth Me’; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.”

As we can see, Pius XII based his reasoning on the words of Our Lord:

“He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me” (Luke 10:16)

It follows naturally from this that anyone who would reject the papal warnings contained in the encyclicals listed above would be rejecting God. If we were to go back in time and ask Pius XII what would happen if his successors attempted to reconcile the Catholic Church with the errors that he and his predecessors had condemned, surely he would tell us that it would amount to the “suicide of altering the Faith.” This is what we have seen since Vatican II.

The Third Secret relates to apostasy at the top of the Church. Why would we expect those overseeing the great apostasy to fully release a secret from the Blessed Virgin Mary that effectively condemned what they are doing?

We know from the words of several witnesses that the Third Secret of Fatima relates to an apostasy that corresponds to what Pius XII described as a the suicide of altering the Faith:

• “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church begins at the top.” (Cardinal Luigi Ciappi, quoted in Christopher Ferrara’s The Secret Still Hidden, p. 43)
• “[The Third Secret] has nothing to do with Gorbachev. The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against apostasy in the Church.” (Cardinal Silvio Oddi, The Secret Still Hidden, p. 42)
• “If ‘in Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved,’ . . . it can be clearly deduced from this that in other parts of the Church these dogmas are going to become obscure or even lost altogether. Thus it is quite possible that in this intermediate period which is in question (after 1960 and before the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary), the text makes concrete references to the crisis of the Faith of the Church and to the negligence of the pastors themselves . . .” (Father Joaquin Alonso, The Secret Still Hidden, p. 35)

As discussed in a previous article, Sister Lucia (the oldest of the Fatima seers) said that the Blessed Virgin Mary wanted the Third Secret to be released in 1960, because the meaning would be more clear then:

“Sister Lucia provided yet another early clue to the content of the Secret when she insisted that the Bishop of Fatima promise that the sealed envelope in which she had sent him the Secret ‘would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever would come first.’ On the outside of the envelope Sister Lucia had described as ‘a letter,’ she had, accordingly, written: ‘By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.’ Sister Lucia later explained the significance of this date to Cardinal Ottaviani during the 1955 interrogation. As Ottaviani revealed in the aforementioned public address: ‘The message was not to be opened before 1960. I asked Sister Lucia, ‘Why this date?’ She answered, ‘Because then it will be clearer (mais claro).’ In answer to the same question from Canon Barthas in 1946, Lucia replied simply: ‘Because Our Lady wishes it so.’” (p. 24)

By 1960 John XXIII had already announced his plans for Vatican II and had set the wheels in motion for the Council to focus on ecumenism. The obvious conclusion is that the Third Secret related to changes in the Church that would take place during Vatican II.

The fact that this obvious conclusion is contested by members of the hierarchy is hardly surprising given the crisis in the Church and the near certainty that the Third Secret relates to apostasy at the top of the Church. Why, in other words, would we expect those overseeing the great apostasy to fully release a secret from the Blessed Virgin Mary that effectively condemned what they are doing?

Vatican II brought about the “victory of Protestantism within Catholicism.” This is even more the case now with the Synod on Synodality.

For better or worse, though, we actually do not need to know the contents of the Third Secret to confirm that there has been a great apostasy which Pius XII would recognize as the suicide of altering the Faith. We can see this with our own eyes. As one concise demonstration of this we can consider the case of Henri de Lubac. Although Pius XII did not condemn specific individuals in Humani Generis, he nonetheless condemned the ideas that de Lubac championed. Fr. Dominique Bourmaud explained this in a 2012 article about de Lubac, Yves Congar, and Karl Rahner:

“Pius XII had little time for the new theology and its avant-garde teachers. They represented for him the rear guard of the old modernist wave so forcefully condemned by St. Pius X in Pascendi of 1907. The pope again reiterated the condemnation of the new—old—trends in Humani Generis: ‘Others [de Lubac] destroy the gratuity of the supernatural order, since God, they say, cannot create intellectual beings without ordering and calling them to the beatific vision.… Some [de Lubac, Congar] reduce to a meaningless formula the necessity of belonging to the true Church in order to gain eternal salvation. Others finally belittle the reasonable character of the credibility of Christian faith.’”

So, along with Rahner and Congar, de Lubac had been suspected of heresy under Pius XII. This did not stop John XXIII from appointing all three men as experts at the Council. To grasp the prominence of de Lubac’s work at the Council, we can merely consider words from Benedict XVI’s final address to the clergy of Rome:

“And this continued throughout the Council: small-scale meetings with peers from other countries. Thus I came to know great figures like Father de Lubac, Daniélou, Congar, and so on.”

Thus, de Lubac (like Congar) had been held under suspicion of heresy under Pius XII but was praised by Benedict XVI six decades later as being a “great figure” at the Council.

In his One Hundred Years of Modernism, Fr. Bourmaud described de Lubac’s role in developing  the concept of “living tradition”:

“De Lubac’s ‘living Tradition,’ which he found in Blondel, is a throwback to Loisy’s ‘law of life’ by which the Church is deformed and transformed to become its own most perfect contradiction. De Lubac’s intellectual heirs, Ratzinger and John Paul II, avidly took to his theory. Once modernism had finally triumphed in St. Peter’s Square, living Tradition became one with the conciliar Church, with no necessary link to any transmission of past Revelation. Living Tradition today labels as false the truth of yesterday, and truth today what was then falsehood. Living Tradition is remarkably convenient, allowing theologians to discount at will twenty centuries of constant and consistent magisterium, and label the infallible condemnation of religious freedom, as well as the anti-modernistic decisions at the beginning of this century, especially the decisions of the Biblical Commission, as ‘provisional dispositions.’ It justifies the excommunication of the few bishops who actually do remain faithful to Tradition. The neo-modernists can take a legitimate pride in this stroke of genius that kills two birds with one stone: protecting modernism and dealing the death blow to apostolic Tradition, both in the name of living Tradition!”

De Lubac’s concept of “living tradition” is a weapon of pure sophistry that has been successfully wielded by villains and dupes alike for six decades to rob souls of the Catholic Faith and replace it with the errors that the pre-Vatican II popes condemned. Those with eyes to see recognize it immediately. Meanwhile, those who are blind or malicious howl that Traditional Catholics are heretical and schismatic for refusing to go along with the errors that Pius XII identified as threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine.

Serious Catholics must of course refuse to accept the novelties that were condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors, no matter how loudly and frequently the innovators tell us that de Lubac’s “living tradition” means that error has become truth, and truth has become error.

Finally, we can look to how de Lubac described the Council:

“The drama of Vatican II consists in the fact that instead of having been conducted by saints, as was the Council of Trent, it was monopolized by intellectuals. Above all it was monopolized by certain theologians, whose theology started off with the preconception of updating the faith according to the demands of the world and to emancipate it from a pre-supposed condition of inferiority with respect to modern civilization. The place of theology ceased to be the Christian community; that is, the Church became the interpretation of individuals. In this sense the post-conciliar period represented the victory of Protestantism within Catholicism.” (quoted in Antonio Socci’s The Fourth Secret of Fatima, pp. 202-203)

De Lubac saw that Vatican II brought about the “victory of Protestantism within Catholicism.” This is even more the case now with the Synod on Synodality. Obviously, those who told us that the Third Secret related to apostasy at the highest levels of the Church appear to have been correct.

Returning to Fr. Bourmaud’s One Hundred Years of Modernism, here is how he summarized the crisis:

“Yet it was a springtime that flooded the Church with winter fog. Paul VI spoke of uncertainty, of skepticism, and of the smoke of Satan entering the Church. John Paul II occasionally stepped out of his habitual optimism and ceded before the evidence of a crisis in the Church. Cardinal Ratzinger, John Paul II’s alter ego, has described in great detail the gaping wounds of each of the four Christian continents. Melanie of La Salette and Sr. Lucy of Fatima, the two seers, united in predicting the spiritual disorientation, the loss of the dogma of the Faith, the eclipse of the Church, and the nefarious role of those appointed as shepherds of the flock. In itself, such a crisis is nothing new; the novelty lies in its having appeared so suddenly and with an unprecedented intensity. What is new is that the burial of Catholic tradition in its entirety was performed with official pomp and ceremony, with incense and pontifical high Mass. Disguised as an apotheosis, Vatican II demolished piece by piece the scaffolding constructed by our Lord, and what remained standing would be bulldozed during the subsequent pontificates.”

It is very simple: we are facing the spiritual disorientation foretold by Our Lady of Fatima because “Vatican II demolished piece by piece the scaffolding constructed by our Lord, and what remained standing [was] bulldozed during the subsequent pontificates.” By rejecting the warnings of the pre-Vatican II popes, John XXIII and the Council’s architects brought about the “suicide of altering the Faith” foretold by Pius XII.

Serious Catholics naturally wonder what we can do to combat this situation. We must of course refuse to accept the novelties that were condemned by Pius XII and his predecessors, no matter how loudly and frequently the innovators tell us that de Lubac’s “living tradition” means that error has become truth, and truth has become error. In addition, we surely need to attach ourselves ever more closely to the Traditional Latin Mass and all that the Church taught prior to the Council. Beyond that, though, the most important part of the “solution” that we can perform is to do what Our Lady of Fatima asked us to do: stop offending God through sin, devoutly say the Rosary, and try to become a saint. If we do this, perhaps God will soon grant a pope the grace necessary for him to properly consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us!

[ebb tide]

Ping

[nanetteclaret]

Thank you for posting this. I will print and study later.

[Ken Regis]

Compare it to God’s Word.
Watch what happens.

[power2]

Excellent article Ebb… thank you. A bit surprised that JP II was mentioned as accepting “modernism”. I usually think of him as doing no wrong (cuz he did so much good and right). But I agree that perhaps even he did not have it 100% right.

[kawhill]

“The drama of Vatican II consists in the fact that instead of having been conducted by saints, as was the Council of Trent, it was monopolized by intellectuals. Above all it was monopolized by certain theologians, whose theology started off with the preconception of updating the faith according to the demands of the world and to emancipate it from a pre-supposed condition of inferiority with respect to modern civilization. The place of theology ceased to be the Christian community; that is, the Church became the interpretation of individuals. In this sense the post-conciliar period represented the victory of Protestantism within Catholicism.” (quoted in Antonio Socci’s The Fourth Secret of Fatima, pp. 202-203) I still can’t understand why they changed it Ebb.

[Prince of Space]

I only got through 3/4 of the article, but I think I got the gist of it. Essentially our religious superiors didn’t live up to their responsibilities regarding the flock, eagerly leaving us to the wolves of the modern world. Apparently even Ratzinger, whom I revered, was part of this plan, which is disappointing. It’s a very sobering article, but thanks for posting it.

[Tell It Right]

It follows naturally from this that anyone who would reject the papal warnings contained in the encyclicals listed above would be rejecting God.

Fellow Christian and FReeper, ebb tide, please think twice before posting statements like that. Your fellow FReepers are not the ones pushing hedonism and leftism that is destroying God's church. Your statement "anyone who would reject the papal warnings contained in the encyclicals listed above would be rejecting God" is like the Dims saying we reject science if we don't believe their global warmageddon doomsday cult. If you don't believe me, I'll use examples from the 1832 one linked above at the top of the list to easily show that one can reject the encyclicals without rejected God. In many ways, a devotion to God inspires us to reject at least many portions of the encyclicals.

#3: So We now present the letter and testimony of Our good will toward you on this happy day, the feast of the Assumption of the Virgin. Since she has been Our patron and savior amid so many great calamities, We ask her assistance in writing to you and her counsels for the flock of Christ. --- I promise you I'm not "rejecting God" when I pray to only the Trinity, not Mary or anyone else. I don't know how much simpler that can be.

#8: Remember also that the government and administration of the whole Church rests with the Roman Pontiff... --- Nope. God's "whole Church" doesn't depend on the whims of one man. Surely righteous minded RCC'ers who rightfully criticize recent popes can at least partly see that too.

#10: Let those who devise such plans be aware that, according to the testimony of St. Leo, “the right to grant dispensation from the canons is given” only to the Roman Pontiff. He alone, and no private person, can decide anything “about the rules of the Church Fathers.” As St. Gelasius writes: “It is the papal responsibility to keep the canonical decrees in their place and to evaluate the precepts of previous popes so that when the times demand relaxation in order to rejuvenate the churches, they may be adjusted after diligent consideration.” --- Applying that to today, are we supposed to just lock-step obey Papa Frank's globalist teachings (and at least to some degree Leo 14's too, though I hope my earlier hopes for him ring true) until a future pope tells us that Papa Frank was wrong? Us devout FReeper Christians, including Protestants and RCC'ers, are not "rejecting God" when we say to ignore Papa Frank's globalist teachings now.

#16: This also was of great concern to the fathers of Trent, who applied a remedy against this great evil by publishing that wholesome decree concerning the Index of books which contain false doctrine. --- This is obviously talking about the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (list of books to ban). By the way, that included Blaise Pascal's Pensées because it heavily critiqued the morality of the Jesuits. I too heavily critique the Jesuits, as do many faithful RCC'ers, and we're not "rejecting God".

#19: They condemn the detestable insolence and improbity of those who, consumed with the unbridled lust for freedom, are entirely devoted to impairing and destroying all rights of dominion while bringing servitude to the people under the slogan of liberty. Here surely belong the infamous and wild plans of the Waldensians, the Beghards, the Wycliffites, and other such sons of Belial, who were the sores and disgrace of the human race; they often received a richly deserved anathema from the Holy See. --- In the late 14th century John Wycliffe translated the Bible to contemporary English (today we call it Middle English) because no one could read the Wessex translation (late 10th century Old English). If you want to understand the importance of Wycliffe's work, look at how different John 1 is in the earlier Wessex / Old English translation from John 1 in the Wycliffe translation. You can see that in the 4 centuries between the Wessex gospels translation and Wycliffe's, the difference between the Old English and Middle English was so vast no one could read the Wessex gospels. It was probably harder for late 14th century Englishmen to read the Old English than it is for us today to read Wycliffe's Middle English (over 6 centuries later). Plus, Wycliffe translated the entire Bible, not just the Gospels like the Old English Wessex translation. So Wycliffe did an amazing help to God's church, yet the 1832 encyclical poo-poo'd on it. Until now I didn't know that over 4 centuries later (in 1832) the RCC was still butt-hurt over Wycliffe allowing English readers to read the Bible (not just the Gospels). I promise you that I'm not "rejecting God" by rejecting the statement I quoted above from the encyclical. I want people of all languages to be able to read God's Word.

[TonyM]

The whole thing is another big lie from the non biblical cult calling itself the Catholic church. As much as I detest Islam I can’t say that Catholics are any better. I feel sad for the people who are born into these cults and indoctrinated as children. Only a few are brave enough to question there cult leaders and escape Satans hold on them and find the true God, Jesus!

[ealgeone]

The false message of the apparition at Fatima.

Selected excerpts are posted.

The full article may be found here.

https://www.gotquestions.org/lady-fatima.html

*****

Was the "Miracle of the Sun" a lying wonder? Based on biblical teaching, it would certainly seem so. Satan has no problem mixing enough truth to make a teaching seem right with just enough error to damn souls to hell. Where is the gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ—the message repeated throughout the whole of the New Testament—ever mentioned in the whole message of Fatima? Where is it ever mentioned that salvation is only through faith in Christ’s finished work on Calvary and that our works have no merit apart from Him (Ephesians 2:8-9)? Penance and making offerings for reparation of our sins are antithetical to Christ’s finished work on Calvary and of our need for salvation by grace alone through faith in Him alone. Calling upon Mary and her “Immaculate Heart” and viewing the Rosary as the ultimate means of saving souls fly in the face of such biblical truths as Acts 4:12 and 1 Timothy 2:5. "To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them" (Isaiah 8:20)

In Catholic tradition, there are many reported occurrences of Mary, angels, and/or saints appearing and delivering a message from God. It is likely that, at least in some of these cases, the people were genuinely seeing something supernatural. While some of what is seen in various places is perhaps the work of charlatans, other apparitions were apparently authentic. However, an apparition being authentic does not mean it is a message from God or a genuine appearance of Mary, an angel, or a saint. Scripture declares that Satan and his demons masquerade as angels of light (2 Corinthians 11:14-15). Satanic deception is just as possible an explanation for the apparitions.

The only way to determine whether an apparition is a "lying wonder" or a genuine message from God is to compare the message of the apparition with Scripture. If the teachings that are attached to these apparitions are contrary to the Word of God, the apparitions themselves are then satanic in nature. A study of the teachings of Our Lady Fatima with the "Miracle of the Sun" is a good example.

"The children were also told to pray and sacrifice themselves for sinners, in order to save them from hell. The children were briefly shown a vision of hell, after which Our Lady told them: 'You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to My Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace.'

"The second reason is because She said to my cousins as well as to myself, that God is giving two last remedies to the world. They are the Holy Rosary and devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. These are the last two remedies which signify that there will be no others.

Again, never do we find a godly person in Scripture praying to anyone but God or asking for intercession by anyone but those still living on this earth. Prayer to Mary or to saints is not found in the Bible. Rather, Scripture directs us to pray to God (Luke 11:1-2; Matthew 6:6-9; Philippians 4:6; Acts 8:22; Luke 10:2, etc.)! God entreats us to come boldly unto the throne of grace (His throne) that we may find grace and help in time of need (Hebrews 4:14-16). God promised us that the Holy Spirit makes intercession for us according to the will of God with groanings that cannot be uttered (Romans 8:26). Why do we need to go through a saint, angel or Mary, especially considering the fact that neither the example of doing so nor the command of doing so is ever given in Scripture? Concerning prayer, we have the repeated example of two things in Scripture: 3) One of the repeated messages of Fatima is the call for personal "reparation" or "penance." This Catholic concept teaches that we must make amends to God and to Mary for the sins we have committed against them. Repeating one of the phrases from "The Message in General," the angel told the children to "make of everything you can a sacrifice and offer it to God as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended..." Reparation is defined as "an expiation ... something done or paid as amends; compensation." This ties in with the Roman Catholic teaching of temporal punishment which a person can take care of through penance now or through time spent in purgatory later. The Bible NEVER speaks of the need to make "reparation" for our sins or doing "penance" to pay for our sins. Rather, what it teaches is that we are to offer our lives as living sacrifices to God in gratitude for all of the mercies He has shown us in salvation (Romans 12:1-2). When a person becomes a Christian, his sins are forgiven and paid for in full by Christ. There remains no further payment that can be made for them, no further expiation required.

4) A key aspect of following the Lady of Fatima is the bowing down before and venerating the images associated with the apparition. Throughout the Bible, we find that any time someone bows down before one of the "saints" or angels, he is told to get up and to stop. Only when done to "the Angel of the Lord" (a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ) or before Jesus or God the Father is such veneration accepted. Catholics make a distinction between "worshiping" God and "venerating" Mary and the saints, but when John the Apostle prostrates himself before an angel, the angel does not ask, "Are you worshiping me or venerating me?" The angel simply tells him to stop and to "worship God" (Revelation 19:10). Likewise, when Peter was being "venerated" (prokuneo - the Greek word that the Catholic Church uses for "veneration" as opposed to "adoration" which only God deserves) by Cornelius in Acts 10:25, Peter tells Cornelius, "Stand up, I myself am also a man." It should be noted that prokuneo is used in the Revelation passage as well. Thus, we have the repeated example of an angel or "saint" being "honored" and the command to stop doing so!

*****

6I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;

7which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.

8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!

9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

Galatians 1:6-9 NASB 95

[ebb tide]

gotquestions is a depraved anti-Catholic prot website that posts numereous lies about the Catholic faith.

I'm not surprised that a Catholic-hater would source it to attack Fatima.

The Miracle of the Sun

An Eyewitness Account by Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal

“It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time

“The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.

“Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet…turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun’s disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.

“During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.

“Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.

“All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena.”

[ebb tide]

If you reject Christ's Mother, you reject her Son.

At the foot of the Cross, did St. John reject Christ's Mother?

 26 When Jesus therefore had seen his mother and the disciple standing whom he loved, he saith to his mother: Woman, behold thy son  [John 19:26]  27 After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother. And from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.

[Tell It Right]

John appropriately took on the responsibility to care for the widow Mary as though she were his mother. Especially important if Catholics are right that Jesus’ “siblings” were really cousins because Mary was a perpetual virgin. So with Jesus dying and going to Heaven soon she had no one else to take care of her.

[BipolarBob]

Sure, sure. If we were to strictly go by the Word of God then nobody would venerate Mary or pray to Mary or even say a Hail Mary. Is that the kind of world we want to leave to our children or grandchildren? Imagine how many times the Apostles must have said it! You’ll have to imagine it because it isn’t recorded.
Which brings to the MOST important question in life and that is do you even own/wear a scapular? If not, how can you be assured of Salvation?
Now you’re probably asking yourself how can you become a Catholic. I’ll leave that to others.

[ealgeone]

gotquestions is a depraved anti-Catholic prot website that posts numereous lies about the Catholic faith.

Yet you cannot post one thing that is incorrect about the article...IF you even read the article.

I'm not surprised that a Catholic-hater would source it to attack Fatima.

Let's keep this fact clear: You said it was possible for God to sin (proof available upon request).

You trust in a man-made idol called the brown scapular to avoid the hell-fire.

Based on just those two known facts you are the very last person on the forum to call into question anyone on any topic.

You are also the most virulent anti-roman catholic and pope basher on the entire forum posting almost daily anti-pope or anti-roman catholic articles.

You have been and are under a great deception by the enemy.

[ealgeone]

If you reject Christ's Mother, you reject her Son. At the foot of the Cross, did St. John reject Christ's Mother?

More false roman catholic teaching based on a complete lack of understanding of the passage by the roman catholic.....which is not a big surprise considering you believe it's possible for God to sin.

[ealgeone]

Sure, sure. If we were to strictly go by the Word of God then nobody would venerate Mary or pray to Mary or even say a Hail Mary. Is that the kind of world we want to leave to our children or grandchildren? Yes....a Biblically based world is the best to leave to our kids.

Imagine how many times the Apostles must have said it! You’ll have to imagine it because it isn’t recorded.

Zero.

Which brings to the MOST important question in life and that is do you even own/wear a scapular?

Nope. If not, how can you be assured of Salvation?

Trusting in Christ, and only Christ for your salvation. No idol will do that.

Now you’re probably asking yourself how can you become a Catholic. I’ll leave that to others.

No thanks. Why join a group that sanctions idols and listens to false apparitions.

[ebb tide]

So the habitual liar has wingnut SDA supporters now?

How many times is “sola scriptura” mentioned in the Bible?

How many times is “sola fides” mentioned in the Bible?

Why did Martin Luther pray a rosary until his death?

Since when has a religious habit become an “idol”?

Address those questions and then do a self-reflection.

[ebb tide]

You are also the most virulent anti-roman catholic and pope basher on the entire forum posting almost daily anti-pope or anti-roman catholic articles.

So says the most dishonest, catholic-hating poster on this forum.

[BipolarBob]

I don’t know who the habitual liar you’re referring to unless it’s yourself.
The idea of solar scriptura comes from admonition to not add to or subtract from the Bible writings.
Salvation based on faith alone and not works as throughout the NT.
I don’t care what Martin Luther did .
Certain religious habits are commanded from God. Without specifics, I can’t answer that question.