What have we learned from . . . our ebook?
The pertinent reason we have included what St. Malachy wrote involves the bouncing term apostasy in relation to the papacy. In the issue of apostasy there are only two courses of action. Change asap or chastisement ensues and after punishment there will be a change.
Anyone who has invested hie/her time in monitoring the papacy for 2-3 generations, can’t fail to notice St. Malachy’s alarming accuracy ending with the Glory of the Olives.
The author does not share the sentiment the last name on Malachy’s list pertains to one dedicated to the service of the Lord as pope. All the other names on the list have but one line. The list is highly accurate from Malachy’s description from John XXIII, the “Shephard and the Sailor.”
Yet, the last name is distinctly different. It has a distinction of being described in multi-verse.
The last name is Petrus Romanus. It bears a signature translated into English as Peter. And, Rome. Or, and of Rome, the seat of the Roman Catholic Church where the popes of our modern era have resided. It bears a signature to all the popes, not just one!
All the popes were either from Rome—ie. lived in Rome as Vicar, not that they were born in Rome—or, can be called a successor to Peter. That is not something unique, to a specific person. In the Catholic Faith all Popes are successors to Peter, well, almost all, a few became Pope through hanky-panky.
Critics to this day, 2019, are trying to figure out a connection to Pope Francis I, he that followed “Glory of the Olives”—one of many who offered their lives to the flock.
While we contemplate the added gravity of trying to decipher Petrus Romanus, the author has offered his interpretation, in chapter one of the ebook. The author might be wrong. Yet, we still possess a sea of “bad things” associated with Petrus Romanus, pointing to a river of destiny, a river that is currently running—if St. Malachy remains 100% accurate, which he has shown since the popes of the 1960s.
We have the wisdom of Rev. Malachi Martin. And, much came to us through the author’s research and being at the right time and right place to record what he said, or, as in the case of Mr. Bernard Janzen, we do know of him and his interviews through various avenues including the people of Catholic Treasures, a place in Monrovia, California that used to sell many unusual items of interest; but they do not exist anymore.
Ever since 1966, when Bishop Joao Venancio, former International President of the Blue Army, requested a learned Claretian priest Joaquin Alonso to begin thoroughly investigating the history of Fatima, we’ve seen myriad books published on the subject of Fatima.
To a modern world a decade or so before, Fatima had been in the news through television (in b-w) via Bishop Fulton J. Sheen’s programs—in our ebook, see page before Ch. 2 Special weblink 2—or by the various programs brought to the public worldwide by the Blue Army, now known as the World Apostolate of Fatima. And, also through Coast To Coast AM. Fatima was not a dead subject then.
In 2010, Pope Benedict XVI said something futuristic: One would deceive himself who thinks that Fatima’s prophetic mission is concluded.
That statement was made 10 years after a part of the 3rd secret of Fatima was revealed by the Vatican about an angel with a sword pointing down to our Earth, with lightning in the background. Near the end of that was a person dressed in white who is killed. The scariest part of Fatima, in my mind, had been something about chastisements or some apostasy in the Church.
In our recent past, between 2000 and 2010, there was no mention of beams of apostasy ofﬁcially connected to the so-called Third Secret from the Vatican. But for years and years, the word “apostasy” had been strewn around, as if it was connected to Sister Lucia and Fatima. However, let us follow a beam of light that sheds the following beam on a slightly different matter, attributed to Sister Lucia—because it was true.
Mid-last century, the 3rd Secret was synonymous with 1960, but why?
Lucia, as early as 1946, had stated the Blessed Virgin had wanted it to be done in 1960—see Historical keypoint 33.
The Third Secret, it is quoted, “would be opened and read to the world upon her death or in 1960, whatever would happen ﬁrst.” So, what possibly happened to negate it? as history saw 1960 come and go, and nothing was revealed in 1960.
In 1960, in short, the then Pope would not release any 3rd secret and forbade any mention of Fatima because he thought it would conflict with the series of high-level proceedings of cardinals called Vatican II in where he invited (demanded?) those partaking in Vatican II to “sushhh and keep quiet” about Russia and Communism as he had also invited the Russian Orthodox Church to come.
On March 17, 1990, in an Italian magazine called Il Sabato, Cardinal Silvio Oddi made a statement about the Third Secret and the pope of the sixties. He first sounds like he desires to tone it down on anything negative about the Pope but ends with the idea to shut up, for he knew he had invited the Orthodox.
He stated, “I believe I knew John XXIII quite well (the Pope in 1960). Since I’ve spent a number of years at his side, if the secret had concerned realities consoling for the Church, like the conversion of Russia or the religious rebirth of Eastern Europe, I believe that he would have brought pressure to bear to make the Secret public. By temperament he did not hesitate to communicate joyful things….But, when I asked him during an audience why in 1960 he had not made public the last part of the message of Fatima, he responded with a weary sigh, ‘Don’t bring that subject up with me, please.’” He never publicly revealed the Secret. John XXIII did invite observers from the Russian Orthodox to attend the Vatican II conferences and, believe it or not, while treated as invited guests, Our Blessed Lady and all things Fatima were ostracized by the commissions and the popes.
Many high-ranking bishops during that time who had travelled to the convocation in Rome, had desired to do a small stopover in Portugal to see Sister Lucia, however, all were denied on orders from the Pope. In a series of mistreatments, secret cohersions and double crosses to Fatima, a horrible transaction arose. None of the high ranking Vatican II conferences attended to any discussion about the existence of Communism.
It was exactly what the Communist leaders of their day wanted, and bolstered first by John XXIII and continued in June of ’63 by Paul VI, all maneuvers by attendees to bring the matter up for consideration were stymied by men loyal to John XXIII and Paul VI, perfectly timed for intervention who sat at the right committee desks.
There were Council members who did not resign themselves to this weird silence, and there were people who stood up several times and tried to deliver petitions.
For example, on the eve of the second session, Dec. 3, 1963, a Bishop de Provence Sigaud gave a petition signed by over 200 Council Fathers from forty-six nations to the Cardinal Secretary of State addressed to Pope Paul VI whereupon the errors of Marxism, Socialism and Communism would be refuted.
THE PETITION was received, cordial words were exchanged that it would be handed to the Pope, and months later when a major exchange was to be addressed by the attendees of the third session in autumn of 1964 titled, “The Church in the Modern World,” not a peep was in the paragraphs of “agenda” regarding Marxism, Socialism and Communism. It was basically a repeat from the first declarations of the opening sessions of ’62, a total ignoring of those persecuted behind the Iron Curtain.
The preparatory phase of Vatican II began with 10 commissions in 1960. The First Session commenced Oct.13 of 1962 and lasted until Dec. 8, 1962. The Second Session was from Sept. 29-Dec.4, 1963. The Third Session was from Sept. 14-Nov. 21, 1964. The Fourth Session was from Sept. 14-Dec. 21, 1965.
We find another example, during the third session, a bishop from China, Bishop You Pin, rector of the Catholic University at Formosa demanded in the name of 70 bishops the addition of a section discussing Communism. “Communism is a militant atheism,” he said. His words fell on deaf ears.
The leaders of the Blue Army, the forerunner of the Fatima World Apostolate, had their emissaries. Miss Emma Folon, the secretary of the Belgian section of the Blue Army, sent a formal request to each of the 2,500 Council high-level cardinals and bishops for the Pope to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. So, they knew about it and were not in the dark.
An archbishop from Brazil, D. Geralso de Provence personally delivered to Pope Paul VI on Feb. 3, 1964, a petition signed by 510 bishops of 78 nations requesting the Pontiff to do a Consecration “of the world” in union with all the Catholic bishops and to specially mention Russia. In the name of 70 Polish bishops, Cardinal Wyszynski had also attempted a request in ’64 to the Holy Father for consecrations, and he did so several times.
In September of 1964, we had the Bishop of Monreale, Sicily and the Bishop of Faro, Portugal ask for the consecration of the Church, of the world, of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. It is said, the ofﬁcial requests failed to reach the members of the commissions charged with making and drafting ofﬁcial reports. How far deep the brakes were put and how deeply involved the actual Popes were is for other historians to disseminate. From the depths of the chambers of the Vatican those cries of a pro-Fatima nature floated into thin air regarding Russia. Within Vatican II meetings there were other things on the agenda, including issues of dogmatic arguments and counter actions involving non-Fatima issues which the Popes seemed more preoccupied.
Believe it or not, on November 21, 1964, the Pope did do some kind of consecration. The words are found in this link. He praised the Blessed Mother, spoke of apostolic missions, and those imprisoned for the faith, praised God, and recommended (commendamus) the whole human race. It was said he had renewed the Consecration of Pius XII. But, he did not.
Read the link.
In essence, Vatican II neither condemned nor mentioned atheistic Communism or said the word “Consecration,” exactly as what took place in the gatherings of the Council. And, that is why St. John Paul II had to re-attempt another try of Consecration in 1982 and also 1984. All the while, during the early 1960’s one must remember the secretive Metz Pact of 1962, ﬁrst a verbal agreement then the real deal made in August of ’62, which is mentioned in this ebook.
There is another ingredient to the story of Fatima, one which occurred in 2013, and is quite important.
In 2013, Pope Francis I conducted a special prayer to Our Blessed Mother and which the Vatican issued news left and right that he did a consecration—which he did not— see keypoint 193. If one ends the story there, and never investigates further items circa 2014-2016, the following latest developments would not have been uncovered. It would be as if the author would loose his worthiness as a good historian.
Anyone who is in tune with Fatima and pays attention to the World Apostolate of Fatima may also wrongly assume no other great ingredients happened since 2013, and be content with the central message of Fatima, which is prayer. There is nothing wrong with prayer, anytime, but there are a few other things that should be relayed to a reader.
Interestingly, utilizing the fashion of the world wide web from several correspondences, one gains an insight that there is more to the story. You’ve read about the behind-the-scenes dealings of the 1960s above. (If you have the time, more information can be found in other books, one of which is The Jesuits, The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church by Fr Malachi Martin.) In 1995, we had a very important data point (keypoint 101) in which the following statement if standing by itself, may have little meaning to the populace. It was made by a papal theologian and adviser to ﬁve popes, Cardinal Luigi Ciappi (1909-1996).
His remark: “In the Third Secret it is foretold, among other things, that the great apostasy in the Church will begin at the top.” Something bad and rotten lurks. Let us now notate something of value concerning “the bad”. Our story takes us to Austria and Germany.
By way of a May 6, 2016 email of Rev. Brian W. Harrison from a professor Dr. Alice von Hildebrand who wrote of a meeting in 1965 she and her husband Dietrich had with a priest named Monsignor (Msgr.) Mario Boehm in Florence, a reader is provided a corroboration of what Cardinal Ciappi talked about in 1995. The private letter, the email of May 6, Dr. von Hildebrand told Rev. Harrison about a 1965 conversation in Florence. I have permission from Rev. Harrison to cite part of the May 6 correspondence:
I think the following two conversations, which I recall very well from the 1960s, are of particular interest now, in these deeply troubled times half a century later. For they apparently corroborate Cardinal Ciappi’s testimony that part of Our Lady’s Fatima secret was the shocking prediction that the great apostasy in the Church would begin “at the top.”
[Dr. von Hildebrand then mentioned a Msgr. Boehm who had been from the 1930s-1940s a leading member of the editorial staff of L’Osservatore Romano.] She continued: The topic of Fatima came up. My husband raised the question, “Why was the third secret of Fatima not revealed?”…Don Mario: It was not revealed because of its content. My husband: What was so fearful about it? Msgr. Boehm (as a well-trained Italian) did not say that he had read it, but intimated that the content was fearful: “infiltration of the Church to the very top”. It shattered us but confirmed my husband’s fear that the way Vatican II was interpreted was going to expose the Church to terrible dangers.”
[She then relates a brief meeting she had had in the Fall of 1965, with a Bella Dodd in N.Y. Dodd was an ardent communist from her days at Hunter College. Dodd converted in 1952.] Professor von Hildebrand: Let me repeat the conversation between her and my husband:
DvH: I fear the Church has been infiltrated.
Bella: You fear it, dear Professor; I know it! When I was an ardent communist I was working in close contact with four cardinals in the Vatican working for us; and they are still very active today.
DvH: Who are they? My nephew Dieter Sattler is a German stationed at the Holy See. But Bella, who was under the spiritual guidance of Archbishop Sheen, declined to give him this information….”
The above was brought to light on May 12, 2016 in the journal OnePeterFive, a website under founding publisher Steve Skojec. The above was part of a long article on several topics by Fr Harrison that included the beginning of the 100th Anniversary of Our Lady of Fatima, Amoris Laetitia, and Ciappi. Within this framework, a full 30 years before Cardinal Ciappi made his stunning disclosure about part of the 3rd Secret, which is not so translucent, it is not so nice to say what the Vatican did, but it is not enough to stand it in the light by itself. That is not enough.
By way of the letter dated May 12, 2016, written by Rev. Brian W Harrison, he was the one who brought to light the events and stories in the first place, and who posted his email correspondence on OnePeterFive, a reader finds out he has been privileged to know Alice von Hildebrand for twenty years, and gave us the very important testimony of our professor.
Hot on the heels of that, three days later, surfaced another correspondence that the author considers very important.
However, before we get into that, I want to add what Fr Harrison additionally wrote before it blows away. Sister Lucia wrote a letter in 1980 to a Monsignor Carlo Caffarra— who became head of the new Pontifical Institute for studies on marriage and the family back in '80. She wrote him, “The final battle between the Lord and the reign of Satan will be about marriage and the family. Don’t be afraid, because anyone who works for the sanctity of marriage and the family will always be contended and opposed in every way, for this is the decisive issue.”
Sister Lucia (left) wrote a letter in 1980 to the new head of the Pontifical Institute for studies on marriage and the family. He was Monsignor (later Cardinal) Carlo Caffarra. He had asked her for her prayers for his new undertaking.
Before Caffarra died in 2017, he proceeded to make her letter known to the public, with her signature, which had taken Caffarra by surprise in 1980.
By way of the other article, by Dr. Maike Hickson also in OnePeterFive, dated May 15, 2016 we find Dr. Hickson telling us about a phone call with a Rev. Ingo Dollinger (1929-2017), right with Padre Pio in 1967.
Rev. Dollinger was a good friend of then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI today) and Dollinger had shared a story with Dr. Hickson about a special secretive conversation they had in Germany way back in 2000. Both are German as is Dr. Hickson, graduate of the University of Hannover.
Rev. Dollinger taught moral theology at the seminary of the Order of Canons Regular of the Holy Cross from 1983-2004. He first founded the University Institutum Sapientiae in Anápolis, its official name.
He had been assigned to Brazil as episcopal vicar and rector at the seminary of Anápolis, but at the same time was Vicar of a parish in Germany in the Diocese of Augsburg. He flew by jet several times a year back and forth to Brazil, even raising 19 million in Deutschmark donations in order to establish the university.
He loved working with the Catholic Scouts of Europe (Katholische Pfadfinder Europas KPE) and had Padre Pio as his confessor for many years. There is a story about the first time he met the Italian Padre Pio (St. Padre Pio now) and presented himself as Don Ingo, St. Pio insisted, “No, your real name is Joachim.” Dollinger could not believe him and not until he returned back home and personally asked his mother, did the truth come out. When he was baptized, the priest who baptized him, for some unexplained reason, called him “Joachim.” Fr. Dollinger and Cardinal Ratzinger saying mass together.
The story of Dollinger and Ratzinger has been long lost in a certain way, for it once appeared in a 2009 journal entry of the Fatima Crusader, issue 92, May 2009 (see also issue 93 Autumn 2009). Honestly, this author can’t say he remembers it. I’ve been researching Fatima for over 20 years and that includes anything about Fr Gruner, and I have much material on him including many of his Crusader issues but, whether I meant to read it later or had read it but don’t remember if I paid attention to it or if I just totally forgot, or maybe had skimmed over it and had planned to reread it later for whatever reason, it flew the coup, until now.
That May 15, Hickson had a special telephone conversation with Dollinger, the former professor of theology in Brazil, who reconfirmed what he had said Ratzinger revealed that there is still a part of the Third Secret that they have not published!
“There is more than what we published,” Ratzinger had told Dollinger.
Dollinger also confirmed over the phone, “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.” Now, let me ask you this pertinent question, from where does a new-style mass, good or “bad mass” start?—from the top.
Years before—pertaining to the same story— there are added details. It pertains to the 2009 article, in it the author Rev. Paul Kramer disclosed the story goes even further back in time. Dollinger it seems was a several long decades friend of Ratzinger. Either 1990 or 1991, Ratzinger had told his friend the Third Secret not only speaks of an “evil council” but the Blessed Mother had issued a warning against changing the liturgy of the mass, which if true, really is something quite radical, for it intones first those “changes” began to take place only after Vatican II, and the Virgin had warned them. Do you remember my link from a couple of pages before attached to the word “shown”? I had asked you to remember what Cardinal Oddi had dared to remark. I had asked you to “remember this line for reference” namely that Oddi said, “The Secret of Fatima contains a sad prophecy about the Church and, for this reason Pope John did not divulge it. And neither have Paul VI or John Paul II. It seems to me that what is basically written is that the Pope would convene a Council in 1960 which, contrary to expectations, would indirectly result in many difficulties for the Church.” Difficulties is an understatement. See the connection?
Secondly, we come to what is implied, the ‘a” word: apostasy.
When Vatican II commenced, it started with John XXIII but ended with Paul VI. Neither of the two took the words of Our Blessed Lady seriously. Paul VI is more credited with allowing the changes of the liturgy of the mass to take hold, changes which old timers will tell you was more than just saying mass in your native language rather then Latin. It’s called the Novus Ordo Mass of the 60’s. Father Joseph Gelineau was the right-hand man of Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, who was the architect of the new rite of Mass, and who had once stated, the old Roman Rite, has been destroyed.
Needless to say, the pros and cons are many and are not the subject of this report, yet may we suggest reading this short report you may find interesting by David Martin. Kramer stated in his article Our Lady of Fatima warned in the Third Secret not to make specifically this kind of change in the liturgy.
Until this whole business came to light, it was all in a background mode to me, and perhaps many people, of something spoken about before from radicals but not specifically connected to the 3rd Secret. In the 2009 article, Kramer related a strange anecdote of when Dollinger was in Brazil and was speaking to one of his students. Exactly as he was telling the story that Our Lady warned against changing the Mass and there would be an evil Council in the Church, a plume of smoke arose from the floor in a mysterious way that it was not supposed to for the floor was made of marble. It could not be explained as a natural phenomena.
It was after the public disclosure of the 3rd Secret in 2000, the Fatima module, that Dollinger made his way to see his old friend Ratzinger (on the left), then Secretary of the Congregation of the Faith why the details that he had revealed to him a decade earlier were different.
The following is what Ratzinger told Dollinger as the Cardinal hurriedly sped by, “Really, there is more there.”
We must remember what Ratzinger said three years before he resigned as Pope in 2013. He had said: We would be mistaken to think that Fatima’s prophetic mission is complete (keypoint 173.) However, he also stated, it must be remembered, in 1984, that the 3rd Secret is about the dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and the last times (keypoint 81.)
A May 21, 2016 unsigned Vatican Press Communiqué went public denying the story of Dollinger and the Third Secret.
Close to Christmas of 2016, on Dec. 21, a Giuseppe Nardi, editor of the German Catholic website Katholisches.info, met a close friend of Dollinger by the name of Gottfried Kiniger. Kiniger lives in the beautiful village of Sillian, Austria. A retired hatmaker in his late 80s, he was politically active in the Pan-European Movement of Otto von Habsburg and first met Dollinger in the 1990s. That December when Nardi first told Kiniger about the story of Dollinger and Fatima, the old hatmaker could not believe it. Kiniger did not use the internet and never heard all this about his old friend. For that reason, they agreed to meet again and not only that, but to record what Kiniger knew.
The following is from the transcript of the conversation recorded on January 17, 2017, and I am grateful for permission to print it here:
“I do not remember the exact date,” says Kiniger, “but it was still in the year 2000, I am sure about that. I still remember the press conference [about the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima] in Rome, as it was then shown on television.
“In the fall, I visited again, as usual, Dollinger with whom I am friends for many years. On this occasion, he told me of his having met Cardinal Ratzinger – then Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith – shortly after that [June 2000] press conference. He even then con-celebrated with him, something which Dollinger usually does not do, but Ratzinger had invited him to do it.
“After the celebration [of the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass], Dollinger spoke with the cardinal and brought up the topic of Fatima and the Third Secret. Ratzinger told him: ‘What we have published is not the whole secret. [‘Was wir veröffentlicht haben, ist nicht das ganze Geheimnis.’] In the sacristy, there were also present other priests – some of them high-ranking priests – to whom the cardinal had to attend intermittently. But he soon returned to Dollinger and said to him: ‘We were instructed to do so.’ [‘Es ist uns so aufgetragen worden.’] This same sentence Dollinger, a second time, repeated: ‘We were instructed to do so.’ He [Dollinger] has interpreted these words, as such: namely, that John Paul II wanted it and ordered it this way. At this meeting, when Dollinger told me all these things, other people were also present, among them my own companion.
“In the years to follow, Dollinger told of this episode again and again, several times, at our meetings. Most of the time, there were also several other people present. It was no secret, there was nothing that he kept secret. This is what the cardinal told him, this is what he passed on to others. Sometimes, there were priests and seminarians also sitting with us at the table who came from the seminary of the Fraternity of St. Peter in Wigratzbad. I do not know their names.
“In any event, numerous people have heard this story over the course of the years. I personally can witness to the story since the fall of 2000, when Dollinger told it to me for the first time.
“There is for me no doubt that Professor Dollinger, in whom I have complete trust, has described the story in a truthful manner. What would have been his reason to invent such a conversation and such a content – and so shortly after the press conference at the time – and then also to tell it freely and openly to everybody who wanted to hear it? That Benedict denies it suddenly, after 16 years, is hard for me to imagine. That seems to me rather implausible. I do not know why Rome does this. I cannot account for it. It seems as if one wishes to put the lid upon Fatima and to close the case. But that does not work. But, I do not know why Rome has acted in such a manner.”