Consequences of Vatican II
The Progressivist Challenge to Fatima
Atila Sinke Guimarães
It seems that we are witnessing a momentous challenge to Our Lady. The progressivist current, which is dominating the Catholic Church from the top, is trying to completely dishonor and discredit the message of Our Lady in Fatima. Let me point out three major steps of this attempt.
1. Finishing with the idea of the conversion of Russia
The insistence of John Paul II and the present day Vatican in stressing that Russia does not need to convert is notorious. This claim has been made per viam facti, by way of the facts, rather than by spoken or written words. One meaningful initiative demonstrating this is the decision of JPII to deliver the icon of Our Lady of Kazan to the schismatic Russian Patriarch Alexis II.(1) Notwithstanding, in Fatima Our Lady said that Russia needed a conversion, and asked specifically for a consecration, prayers and penance for that.
Three attempts to blur, fade, and silence the message of Fatima
Actually, Russia did not convert at all. Two main reasons support the fact:
First, despite the optimistic propaganda proclaiming its demise, Communism did not die. It remains in power in Russia and in several other countries of the old Iron Curtain. It is stronger than ever in China, North Korea, and Vietnam. It continues to dominate Cuba, recently took over Brazil, and is striving to install its regime in other South American countries. Therefore, the fantasy that Communism died is just a fabrication to anesthetize the reaction of the not-so-clever Western bourgeois and the not-so-sincere Catholic conservative.
Second, from 1917 until today, the schismatic Russian Church has not changed any of its erroneous doctrines on the Holy Trinity, Papal Infallibility, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary. It also sustains the same spirit of arrogance toward Rome than it has held for the last 1,000 years.
Therefore, Russia did not convert in either the temporal or the religious sphere, and the warning Our Lady gave at Fatima about the errors of this country continues to be as timely today as it was in 1917.
In my opinion, for John Paul II and the progressivist current to insist on the opposite, that is, in acting as if Russia does not need to convert, is to directly challenge the judgment of Our Lady.
2. Putting aside the Third Secret
The third part of the Fatima message that was supposed to be kept secret until 1960 came to be known as the Third Secret. When the time arrived – 1960 – Pope John XXIII did not reveal it. Why? He had his reasons…
Some of the Cardinals and theologians who had read the text revealed that it forewarned of a “revolution” coming from the upper echelons of the Church Hierarchy. This revolution would obliterate the Catholic Faith.
For example, Cardinal Mario Luigi Ciappi wrote:
Oddi: the Third Secret concerns a revolution in the Church
“In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” (2)
Cardinal Silvio Oddi wrote on the same subject:
“According to the most probable interpretation, the Third Secret – which John XXIII did not consider opportune to reveal – is not about the conversion of Russia, still far from occurring, but the ‘revolution’ in the Catholic Church.” (3)
What was this revolution in the 1960s that would have warranted a warning from Our Lady? Certainly, it was Vatican Council II. This is not just my opinion. Many of the progressvists themselves call the Council a “Copernican revolution.” (4) In fact it caused a complete change in the Catholic Church and the Catholic Faith. Therefore, it makes full sense that Our Lady would warn the faithful not to accept the errors that would issue from Vatican II.
Progressivism, however, pays no mind to the message of Fatima. Its thinkers consider Fatima to be nothing more than the product of a primitive collective imagination.
This negative view was clearly expressed by progressivist Cardinal Yves Congar when he wrote about the role of recent prophecies in the Church:
Congar: Fatima is product of a primitive imagination - Actualite des Religions, January 2003
“Supported by fervor, as well as by fanaticism, and exploiting human hope …. the imagination constructed its utopias and created a way to escape fears, hatreds, and political options. From this, stories were born about the anti-Christ, a chastisement and the devastation of Rome, or, in a contrary sense, stories about an angelical Pope, the Holy Land, the end times, etc. Our epoch still resounds with echos of these ideas. Once again there is talk about the ‘prophecy of Malachy,’ Nostradamus, and the Third Secret of Fatima assembling ‘blue armies’…” (5)
Fr. Hans Küng also wrote against Fatima. Here, in one of his many texts, he accused Lucia, Francisco, and Jacinta, as well as Catholics who believe in Fatima, of being Montanisnts and Joaquinists – two different heresies of the past about the end times:
“As in Montanism, some post-Trent seers became known for their apocalyptical ideas (prophecies of an approaching end times, a great war, a terrible catastrophe or the conversion of Russia). Their devotees were at the same time terrified and fascinated – and this is one of the reasons for their astonishing success. As in Montanism, the post-Trent seers also presented rigorous moral demands: condemnation of the world and a call for extraordinary acts of mortification to avoid chastisements ….
It seems that this skeptical and scornful progressivist view of Fatima was shared by John XXIII. It would explain why he avoided revealing the message of Our Lady in 1960, and pushed forward the plan for a Council. In any case, the fact is that John XXIII put aside the Third Secret. This was equivalent to saying: “I don’t care about such a prophecy. Instead, I will make the Council it wants to avert.” Indisputably, a bold challenge to Our Lady.
“As in Joaquinism, ones finds a mystical interpretation of numbers and related calculations: e.g. important events have taken place on the 13th day of the month …. As in Joaquinism, it has been considered necessary to make new associations to spread ideas according to which some particular form of piety (an image, devotion or a medal) is considered as important as the Word of God witnessed in Scriptures.” (6)
Such audacity on the part of John XXIII was followed in 2000 by the joint imitative of Cardinal Angelo Sodano and Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who tried to definitely silence any remaining expectations about the Third Secret, as well as the traditional interpretations of the already known parts of the message. No more apostasy of the Catholic Faith coming from the top; no more “revolution” in the Church; no more conversion of Russia; no more chastisement coming from Heaven; no more disappearance of many nations; no more reign of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. All these predictions were sentenced to silence and death.
The new interpretation by Ratzinger and Sodano was an attempt to bury the Fatima message
An incomplete new text with vague and enigmatic symbols was released and imposed by Sodano and Ratzinger as a final and definitive “revelation.” Again, another audacious step in the progressivist challenge to Our Lady, and an attempt to destroy the warning she came to give to the Catholic faithful to avoid the present day religious crisis.
3. Destroying Fatima as symbol of the Catholic Faith
Another important step in the progressivist challenge to Our Lady was taken last October. The progressivist Hierarchy revealed that it is planning to transform Fatima into an ecumenical centre to worship the “gods” of all the false religions of the world.
The plan to transform Fatima in an interfaith shrine was announced at the October 10-12 conference sponsored jointly by the Vatican and the United Nations in Portugal (Frontpage Online – Portugal’s Weekend Newspaper, November 1, 2003). The news report made this summary of the event:
Model plans for the shrine to be constructed in the Fatima Square - Santuario-Fatima website
“Delegates attending the Vatican and United Nations inspired annual interfaith congress ‘The Future of God,’ held during October in Fatima, heard how the Shrine is to be developed into a centre where all the religions of the world will gather to pay homage to their various gods. The congress was held in the Paul VI Pastoral Centre and presided over by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon, José da Cruz Policarpo.”
The Shrine’s rector, Msgr. Luciano Guerra, set out the ecumenical future for Fatima:
“The future of Fatima, or the adoration of God and His mother at this Shrine, must pass through the creation of a shrine where different religions can mingle. The inter-religious dialogue in Portugal, and in the Catholic Church, is still in an embryonic phase, but the Shrine of Fatima is not indifferent to this fact and is already open to being a universalistic place of vocation.”
Jesuit theologian Fr. George Dupuis, a principal speaker at the event, also emphasized this theme. He stated:
“The religion of the future will be a general converging of religions in a universal Christ that will satisfy all (ibid).”
The official statement released by the congress called for a non-proselytizing approach by all religions. It asserted:
“No one religion can irradiate another …. or strengthen itself by downplaying others. An open dialogue is the way to building bridges and tearing down walls of centuries of hate. What is needed is that each religion be true to its faith integrally and treat each religion on the same footing of equality with no inferior or superiority complexes (ibid).”
One should note that high Church dignitaries were present at the conference. It was opened by the Bishop of Leiria and Fatima Serafim Ferreira e Silva and was closed by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon José Policarpo. The Vatican was represented by Archbishop Michael Fitzgerald, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue. The three Prelates all spoke at the congress and endorsed the transformation of Fatima into a pan-religious centre. That is to say, it would be impossible to have a more official and solemn affirmation that this plan comes from the top of the Conciliar Church.
Here it behooves me to recall that several of the Prelates and theologians who had read the Third Secret stressed that it spoke about an enormous crisis in the Catholic Faith. In this context Our Lady would have assured the three children that Portugal would maintain the Catholic Faith. In Sister Lucy’s memoir of the apparitions, she ends the recount of the Second Secret with these words: “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.” The “dogma of the Faith” Our Lady spoke of obviously supposes that only the Catholic Faith is the true faith.
Now then, by transforming Fatima into a sort of Pantheon where all the false gods would be worshiped along with the one true God, one can only surmise that the present day Vatican decided to subvert this prediction of Our Lady also. To clump together all the false religions to worship at Fatima seems an irony, a parody of the real Fatima. It is what the present day Vatican wants to impose on Catholic Portugal.
When one studies the History of the Chosen People in the Old Testament, it is clear that their major vice was to follow the bad customs of others peoples and their capital sin was to worship the false gods of those peoples. Many times God manifested His wrath over these offenses, and many times He chastised the Chosen People for them. We should take heed. For what the Hebrew people did then was less than what is being planned today. Yes, it was less, because they did not go so far as to build a temple to adore the false gods. Yet that is what the progressivists plan to do in Fatima.
Therefore, the stated aim of building a temple in Fatima that will be a centre to worship all the false gods is a sin similar to but much graver than the one committed by the Chosen People. It is also an enormous injury and provocation to Our Lady.
Once again, as in the other two initiatives, we see the same intent to challenge Our Lady. The three steps form in crescendo a colossal challenge made by Progressivism against Our Lady.
What will be the consequence of this provocation? It is no small matter to provoke and challenge Our Lady. Scriptures says that the blessing of a father firmly establishes the house of his children, but the curse of a mother uproots its very foundations (Eccles. 3:11). It is a patent counsel to avoid incurring the wrath of a mother. Progressivism is now deliberately provoking the wrath of Our Lady. It should be more cautious lest it find its foundations completely uprooted. It is my opinion and my prayer that a consummate chastisement would be forthcoming soon in response to this latest provocation.
I don’t know what else is necessary for conservatives and traditionalists to open their eyes and see just how evil these persons are at the top of Holy Mother Church.
1. Check Dr. Marian Horvat’s article on the topic, “Handing over the Symbolic Icon of Our Lady of Kazan”.
2. Paul Kramer, The Devil’s Final Battle, (Terryville, CT: The Missionary Ass., 2002), p. i.
3. Silvio Oddi, Il Tenero mastino di Dio, (Rome: Progetti Museali Editore, 1995), p. 217.
4. Atila S. Guimarães, Animus Delendi I, (Los Angeles: TIA, 2000), Chap IV, §§ 2-4; Animus Delendi II, (Los Angeles, TIA, 2002), Part I, Chap. I, note 2.
5. Yves Congar, La parole et le souffle, (Paris: Descleé de Brouwer, 1984), pp. 116-7.
6. Hans Küng, A Igreja (Lisbon: Moraes, 1969), vol. 1, pp 282-3.
Posted November 18, 2003
|Related Works of Interest|
Fatima | Vatican II | Hot Topics | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
© 2002- Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved