A Fatima Discussion

[Jul.12/25]

From late June 2025. An attack was made upon Fatima, and a defense was mounted. This is what went on, before your author deleted his own entries for reasons not to be given:

Stephen 
15 hours ago 
Many years ago at an independent sede chapel I heard a wonderful old Franciscan Priest state during a homily: "Oh, and the Lucy imposter thing, .. lets not even get into it". I nearly fell out of the pew! I am pretty sure it was the Diamond Bros. who first formally made the 'fake Lucy' claim around that time. On Fatima; When My oldest child (now 35) was around 7 he asked "Dad, why would a Mom show baby kids hell and burning suffering souls?" I told him: "I'm not sure, but I will do my best to find out" - I have read the books and visited Fatima Portugal. I now believe that Lucy of six memoirs, a biography and at least 4 movies was as her mother claimed; "Was making up lies to get attention." I have on numerous occasions witnessed first hand what has been described as "the miracle of the Sun" exactly as described by 1917 witnesses. Pius XII it is claimed also saw the miracle in the Papal garden on 2 occasions. It is an optical illusion related to the optic nerve and filtered sunshine through cloud cover. If one carefully looks at the cultural backdrop of Catholic Portugal and the emerging modernist world at that time it is understandable how the imagination of a very bright, gregarious and bold child has had such holding power. Please note, NONE are required to believe in private revelation.

• 
  cairsahr_stjoseph Stephen
  9 hours ago edited 
  It was not an optical illusion. There was no clouds when it happened. You sound like the rationalist, Gerard de Sede, so brilliantly refuted by Frere Michel in "The Whole Truth About Fatima", Vol. I. After reading that, I knew the theory of evolution was wrong though I didn't have anything at the time to explain why in particular.
  Fatima is the entry to Apocalypse and is one of the "seven thunders" St. John was forbidden to write in Apoc. 10: 4. Fatima is fulfilled one way or the other; there is no alternative. In Apocalypse, the manner of the reign of antichrist will be according to Chapter 11 OR Chapter 13, according to how we got there from Fatima, consecration or not. 🧐

("Stephen")

It was and is an optical illusion. The quasi-catholic clown show in Medjugoofy claim this same 'miracle' regularly. No Clouds? I thought it rained and the clothing miraculously dried off? No? Re: Frere Michel's tome. At 2,274 pages in the three volume set, I have to admit I did not read the complete set. I found it to be more painful than a course rope wrapped around a 7 year old's waist. BTW Lucy told dear Francisco and Jacinta to NOT tell their parents about the rope!! How is that OK? The Blessed Mother comes for a visit and does not want a 7 and 9 year-old to tell their folks the details? Just listen to big cuz. Talk about talking to strangers! Oh and its a good idea to drink dirty water from puddles and give away your already meager lunch? And to die alone in Lisbon? Why, tell me why Jucinta's parents were not at her bedside at her death?

I fully understand I am rejecting what some believe is dogma. It is my belief that Saint Pius X in Pascendi described Modernism perfectly. In the Oath "I hold with certainty and sincerely confess thatfaith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality"

And she said in Scripture ;"Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye." John 2:5
Pretty clear, no secrets.

Keep The Faith

• 
  cairsahr_stjoseph Stephen
  2 hours ago 
  Your dishonesty is showing:
  "Clouds? I thought it rained and the clothing miraculously dried off?"
  You just said that "It is an optical illusion related to the optic nerve and filtered sunshine through cloud cover". Meanwhile I had just said there were no clouds at the time, meaning, at the time of the miracle.
  The point about the rope is irrelevant. All three agreed to mortify themselves, and that includes not bragging about it to their parents. Their other mortifications were made in the same spirit of humility.
  What I am seeing here is bad faith judgements, and even Accusations against the primary Fatima seer and probable martyr.
  The quote from St. Pius X is irrelevant here, and is a false attribution. I've already pointed out the two possible timelines of Fatima lead to those of Apocalypse. This is based on logical comparisons between things which match and those which do not. And nothing else does.

Pascendi Stephen

11 hours ago

I don’t agree with your assessment. Regarding her personality it was just the opposite of an attention seeker. It was only the individual from 1967 and thereafter who seemed to enjoy the spotlight.
As for the miracle of the Sun, even if there is a natural explanation for the event it doesn’t explain how a ten year old girl could have known when and where it would occur.

• 
  Stephen Pascendi
  4 hours ago 
  Lucy was carried on her fathers shoulder through the crowd. Not sure how you could make a claim regarding her 'personality'. I would think her earthly Mother may be best to determine that, and she did. Lucia lived in a cloister, not much of an opportunity for the spot light. Lucy 2 I think simply indicates a desire of the V2 church to 'keep this charade and cash cow going'. Quick search on google showed me 40 books on Fatima, 40!
  The so-called 'miracle of the sun' can be seen on many days throughout the year. Coastal fronts traveling inland hitting elevations as in Fatima regularly cause low cloud formations and a filtering effect on the sun. Of the 70,000 or 100,000 'witnesses' there were under 20 interviewed about what they saw. Lucy's fathers farm and the area was already a popular pilgrimage site. People traveled there wanting answers - The War to End All Wars (WW1) was raging, young Portuguese and German men were killing each other in the just-budding military Industrial Complex. What a great way to sedate Catholics. How do you keep simple people in suspense? I'll tell you tomorrow (or maybe 1960, or maybe I'll just keep you guessing?)
• 
  

• 
  cairsahr_stjoseph Stephen
  18 minutes ago 
  "Lucy was carried on her fathers shoulder through the crowd."
  He didn't want her mobbed by the crowd. It's not a victory procession as you seem to imply.
  Not sure how you could make a claim regarding her 'personality'. I would think her earthly Mother may be best to determine that, and she did.
  Jacinta's mother thought that Jacinta was seeking attention when she blurted out about the first apparition at home. The three seers decided to keep quiet of that, but it was providentially too late. All accounts agree, except perhaps for freemasonic propaganda, that Lucia was no attention seeker.
  Lucia lived in a cloister, not much of an opportunity for the spot light.
  The bishop placed her with the Dorothean sisters to keep the curious from wanting some spotlight for themselves. It was to keep her safe.
  Lucy 2 I think simply indicates a desire of the V2 church to 'keep this charade and cash cow going'.
  Similar to charges made by some that G. de Sede quoted that the whole thing was a result of 'clerical machinations'.
  If the V2 church wanted to "keep the cash cow going" why get rid of the original seer ? Surely she was in on it! But I doubt the contradiction will cause any embarrassment.
  Quick search on google showed me 40 books on Fatima, 40!
  It is not to be wondered at. I'm guessing that this form of gaslighting reflects astonishment that a 'fraud' could be so in-depth as to produce many books on the subject. It would be astonishing...if Fatima was indeed a fraud.
  This gaslighting is of the same nature as pretending that illegal immigrants have the same rights as citizens thus implying but not stating that borders don't matter and a nationless globalism is the default, correct standard.
  The so-called 'miracle of the sun' can be seen on many days throughout the year.
  Witnesses ? Accounts ? Film ?
  Coastal fronts traveling inland hitting elevations as in Fatima regularly cause low cloud formations and a filtering effect on the sun.
  Similar to the ambiguous claims of climate change which is contrived from actual weather patterns, of which there must be outliers, since the climate by its nature is always changing. Here ambiguity takes the lead in misleading by pseudo-scientific prose arrangement; rainbows, for example, are also made by "low cloud formations and a filtering effect on the sun". But we're not talking about rainbows...or are we. Could be we're just not saying it. Oops, it's been said.
  
  Of the 70,000 or 100,000 'witnesses' there were under 20 interviewed about what they saw.
  There were so many testimonies that many were redundant. Bishop da Silva should have done more, but he thought it was unnecessary, for there were so many.
  
  Lucy's fathers farm and the area was already a popular pilgrimage site.
  Not very profitable, since the farming is made difficult. Looks like there were indeed many 'witnesses'.
  
  People traveled there wanting answers - The War to End All Wars (WW1) was raging, young Portuguese and German men were killing each other in the just-budding military Industrial Complex. What a great way to sedate Catholics.
  The usual 'clerical machinations' at work, according to the Church's detractors. The reference to Marx's 'religion is the opiate of the people' is not overlooked. What is ignored is that there were many protestants in the war as well. How'd it work for them ?
  How do you keep simple people in suspense? I'll tell you tomorrow (or maybe 1960, or maybe I'll just keep you guessing?)
  A cynical appraisal of the intent behind the alleged fraud: to keep people in suspense! What could be easier than to keep a secret which existence wouldn't be made generally known until Sr. Lucia published it in her third memoir, in 1941! Its existence wasn't common knowledge.
  I take it you want others to believe that the suppression of the third secret was merely to "keep people in suspense". It's rather different actually:
  "Many shall be chosen, and made white, and shall be tried as fire: and the wicked shall deal wickedly, and none of the wicked shall understand, but the learned shall understand" (Daniel 12:10).
•  
  
  ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  • • 

      anna mack cairsahr_stjoseph 9 hours ago

      Fatima is something I'm always in two minds about. Why the secrets? Why "reveal the secret in 1960", when the Church had already been usurped?

       

      • • 

          cairsahr_stjoseph Stephen 17 hours ago

           

            

          Its suppression is revealing in itself, and, in hindsight, is all we need to know about it.
          
          Also, that it was suppressed forced some of us to look elsewhere. Surely the times must be of Apocalypse. If not now then when ?
          
          La Salette had secrets too. But they were not to be made known until requested by the Church. They "were delivered to the Pope on July 18, 1851, on the advice of Bishop de Bruillard".
          
          Part of the reason for keeping the secrets was to wait for the Church to move towards approval of the apparitions beforehand. La Salette was formally approved on Sept. 19, 1851 but that the Church requested the secrets be told to the Church shows a definite progression towards approval.
          
          For Fatima, it was impossible for the secret to be revealed immediately. It spoke of "another worse war" when the first had not even finished yet. This would have been bewildering, and subsequently make formal recognition of the apparitions to be impossible (Paraphrased from Frere Michel).
          
          The gradual unveiling allowed the secret to play its part. First, it was guaranteed by the miracle of the sun (facile naturalistic explanations notwithstanding); then Fatima was approved by the Church, even though the existence of a secret was known but not what it was.
          
          When it was revealed to Pius XII, part of it had been fulfilled: the "night illumined by an unknown light" in 1938 and the beginning of "another worse war" under Pius XI. It began before formal declaration because the powers of the world had already decided upon it before 1939. Anticipating the naturalists' explanation about it, I asked Grok about whether everyone sees it all the time:
          
          "The aurora borealis of January 25–26, 1938, known as the "Fatima Storm," was a remarkable event due to its global visibility, intense red and green displays, and association with a massive geomagnetic storm. It was visible as far south as Southern California, Bermuda, southern Australia, and southern Europe (e.g., Sicily, Gibraltar, Portugal), a rare occurrence for low-latitude auroras. Its brightness and extent were unprecedented in Europe since 1709 and in the Americas since 1888. "
          
          So it was not a common occurrence, and unknown to most people at the time. Moving on...
          
          So all that tells Pius XII that the rest of the secret is relevant in its continuity.
          
          But he did not consecrate Russia in union with all the bishops of the world - doing it by himself is not what was requested. Why did he not do so ? Was his faith wavering, that is, was he afraid of what might happen if nothing happened ? Afraid to find out ? Who knows. He published the text of consecration and that is all.
          
          So, why the secrets ? First, there is an older precedent than La Salette. We go all the way back to Apocalypse Chapter 10:
          
          2  And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot upon the earth.
          
          3  And he cried with a loud voice as when a lion roareth. And when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices.
          
          4  And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying to me: Seal up the things which the seven thunders have spoken; and write them not.
          
          My conclusion is that there is a greater secret in Apocalypse.