Padre Gruner

Pope John Paul II gives us the key to the authentic Third Secret Father Nicholas Gruner, S.T.L., S.T.D. (Cand.) In this interview, answer three fundamental questions about the Third Secret of Fatima: 

1) It is important to know him? 

2) What is the Third Secret? 

3) What can we do about it? 

Question: What did the Pope tell us about the Third Secret? 

Pope John Paul II gave us essential elements of the Third Secret in his sermon of 13 May 1982, as well as in his sermon during the beatification ceremony of Jacinta and Francisco Marto in Fátima on 13 May 2000. 

Question: What did the Pope tell us about the Third Secret on May 13, 1982? 

On 13 May 1982 Pope John Paul II said in his sermon: "Can the Mother with all the force of love which is the Holy Spirit and desires the salvation of all, may she remain silent when he sees the very basis of His children's salvation undermined? " And the Pope answered his own question: "No, She can not remain silent." Here, the Pope is telling us that the Message of Fatima refers to Our Lady's warning that the foundations of our salvation are being undermined. Then on May 13, 2000, during the sermon of the beatification ceremony, the Pope told the faithful to beware with the dragon's tail, and quoted verses 3 and 4 of Chapter 12 of the Book of Revelation. Now Revelation 12: 4 speaks of the dragon's tail that will sweep over a third of the stars in the sky, which is generally interpreted as referring to a third of the Catholic clergy. 

Question: But at what point in the Message does the Blessed Virgin speak about the basis of our salvation to be undermined? 

It is clearly not in the first two parts of the Secret of Fatima, which say nothing about the basis of our salvation being undermined to be or the tail of the dragon sweeping consecrated souls and hurl them from their exalted state. The only evident reference in the text of the Message of Fatima on the basis of our salvation being undermined or on the fall of consecrated souls is found in Sister Lucia's fourth memory, where she added to the full text of the Message a sentence that until then had omitted: "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc. 

"It is here, and only here, that the part already revealed of the entire Message of Fátima touches on the question of the dogmas of the Faith, and which will be preserved in Portugal." 

But what relevance would it have if Our Lady mentioned this, if dogma were also preserved in other parts of the world? It is evident that the reference to Portugal as a nation in which dogma would be preserved introduces the notion that in other nations it will not be preserved, and these "other nations" will certainly be described in the words understood by "etc." Sister Lucy. But the vision published on June 26, 2000 contains no more words from Our Lady. So where are the words in "etc." How does the obviously important reference to dogma be preserved in Portugal end, but obviously not in other countries? I can only conclude that the missing words of Our Lady can be found in the "soundtrack", so to speak, of the Third Secret, in which Our Lady would explain the vision published on June 26 by Cardinal Ratzinger and Monsignor Bertone. And I noticed that, very recently, Mother Angelica said on her live television program that she was also "one of the people who think they didn't tell us everything" - referring to the whole Third Secret. Mother Angelica explained next that she believes that it was not all revealed because "I think it is scary." I totally agree. It is very frightening, because it must refer to the greatest danger of all - the danger to the Faith and the salvation of souls. The vision published on June 26 does not contain anything so frightening, or even so controversial, that the Vatican had to have closed it under lock and key for forty years.

Question: What did the Pope mean in 1982 when he spoke of the "basis of our salvation"? What is the basis of our salvation? 

It is the Catholic Faith. We know this from the Saint Athanasian Creed, which says: "Whoever wants to be saved must, first of all, accept the Catholic Faith. He must keep this Faith whole and inviolate; otherwise, he will certainly perish for eternity." Thus, the basis, the foundation of our salvation, is to belong to the Catholic Church and to maintain our Catholic Faith whole and inviolate. And this is what the Third Secret is all about. And we know this, not only from the Pope's comment but also from the words of Our Lady: "In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved," which indicates - as all the researchers of Fátima have said - that the Third Secret refers to Catholic Faith. Of course, we have Frère Michel's book (The Third Secret) and Father Alonso's writings, which confirm this. We also have Bishop D. Alberto Cosme do Amaral - the third Bishop of Fátima - who confirmed this point in his address in Vienna, Austria on September 10, 1984. He then told us that the Third Secret refers to the apostasy of nations. And apostasy happens, of course, with the loss of Faith. "Its content," he insisted, "concerns only our Faith. To identify the Secret with catastrophic announcements or with a nuclear holocaust is to distort the meaning of the Message. The loss of a continent's faith is worse than the annihilation of a nation. ; and it is true that the Faith is continually decreasing in Europe. "1 We also have Cardinal Ratzinger to confirm this whole thesis of the Secret referring to the danger of apostasy in the Church in his famous interview with the magazine Jesus of November 1984, in which he tells us that the Third Secret refers to the "dangers that threaten the faith and life of the Christian, and, consequently, of the world. " Every word of the interview was personally approved by Cardinal Ratzinger before being published.

Q: Why should we be concerned with the content of the Third Secret? 

The Secret is very important to us - it cannot be more important - because it concerns the salvation of our individual souls. It also concerns the salvation of the souls of the Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Fathers and all people. Thus, the Third Secret concerns all men, women and children on the face of the earth, but especially Catholics. It is our greatest concern, because it means our eternal salvation. Our Lord said, "What does it profit a man to gain the whole world if he loses his immortal soul?" If a person loses his soul in favor of the New World Order, the New World Religion, or for a promise of peace and prosperity in the world, it will be of no use to him, because he will be burning in hell for all eternity. Therefore, the Third Secret is of the utmost importance for every man, woman and child, including, of course, every priest, Bishop and Cardinal, and even the Pope himself.

Question: What is the essence of the Third Secret? 

It is a prophecy that began to be fulfilled at least from 1960, that Sister Lucy said was the year in which the Third Secret prophecy would be "clearer." It is a prophecy that speaks to us of our time. It is a warning inspired by the love that Our Lady has for us, as well as advice on how to act in these circumstances. The Third Secret of Our Lady of Fatima tells us that the dogma of the Faith will be preserved in Portugal, and all experts in Fátima agree that it means that the dogma of the Faith will not be preserved elsewhere. This is the first essential point of the Third Secret. Therefore, the Third Secret refers, first of all, to the dangers to the Faith, as Cardinal Ratzinger said in 1984. St. John tells us that it is the Faith that conquers the world. For the world to subjugate the Church, it must, in the first place, subdue our Faith. And this is what the Secret refers to: our Faith. We know this from the words of Our Lady that Sister Lucy wrote at the beginning of the Third Secret. ; we know it from Cardinal Ratzinger; we know it from the Bishop of Fátima; we know it from the Pope's comments at Fatima in 1982 in 2000. It refers to our Faith. There is no doubt about it. Second, it refers to the dogma of the Faith. Our Lady of Fatima said that the dogma of the Faith would always remain in Portugal. Why did Our Lady speak of the dogma of Faith? He spoke of dogma because it would be the target of anyone who wanted to attack the Church from within. What is dogma? Dogma is what was infallibly defined. We know the dogma of the Faith by the solemn and infallible definitions of the Church's Magisterium. The word 'infallible' means that "you can't go wrong". Therefore, the definitions of the Faith, solemnly proclaimed by the Church, cannot be wrong. And we know what Faith is, what the dogma of Faith is, by these infallible definitions. The problem is that, since the Second Vatican Council, other notions have appeared that pass in the Church as if it were a "new" Catholic doctrine and that seem to contradict, or at least "revise", the infallible definitions. But, as Vatican I clearly taught, the infallible Magisterium - which means that the Pope, either alone or with all the bishops, proclaims a teaching to the universal Church - cannot give us a new doctrine. The Magisterium can only declare and better explain what God has revealed through the Apostles. God has not revealed any new doctrine since the death of the last Apostle, St. John. Therefore, this "new" doctrine is, in reality, a pseudo-doctrine. This pseudo-doctrine is being taught very subtly; but when it contradicts the doctrine that has been infallibly defined, we must believe in the infallible doctrine and reject the "new" doctrine. So, it is important that we understand that it is the dogma of the Faith that cannot go wrong. Men can make mistakes; laypeople can make mistakes; priests can make mistakes; bishops can make mistakes; Cardinals can make mistakes; and even the Pope can err on matters that do not imply his infallibility charisma, as history shows us with more than one Pope (for example, Pope Honorius was condemned after being killed by the Third Council of Constantinople [680 AD] for help and support heresy, and this condemnation was approved by Pope Leo II and confirmed by other Popes). But the solemn definitions of the Faith, made by the Pope, or by the Pope together with all the bishops at a Church Council, cannot be wrong.

Everything must be judged by these definitions that cannot go wrong. Thus, if a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop, a priest or a layman wants to teach us something contrary to any definition of the Faith, we know that that layman, priest, Bishop, Cardinal or Pope is wrong. For example, when John XXII, in the 14th century, gave sermons (but not solemn definitions) in which he insisted that the blessed deceased would not enjoy the Beatific Vision until the day of the Final Judgment, he was denounced and corrected by theologians, and finally , at the time of death, retracted his heretical opinion. And how can we be sure? Because if the definition is infallible, you can't go wrong. As I said - a Pope, a Cardinal, a Bishop, a priest or a layman can make mistakes. Yes, even the Pope can make mistakes, and he makes mistakes if he expresses an opinion contrary to a solemn and infallible definition of the Catholic Church. This does not mean that the Church makes mistakes when this happens, but only that the Pope was wrong, without imposing his error on the whole Church. As we see from the example of John XXII, the Pope may be wrong in some teaching or opinion that was not imposed on the Church by a solemn and infallible definition. And so, when Our Lady spoke of the "dogma of the Faith", she indicated that the danger against the Faith is clearly seen when the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Faith are contradicted. But the definitions cannot fail.

Question: Do we have other examples of priests, bishops, Cardinals or even Popes who have wavered? 

Yes of course. We have Martin Luther, who was a priest and made mistakes - taught heresies. We have Bishop Nestorius, who taught Nestorianism - who had been condemned by the Council of Ephesus. We also have the priest Arius, who erred in his doctrine, called Aryan. We even have Popes who made mistakes in certain cases, like John XXII and Pope Honorio. Even the first Pope, St. Peter, was wrong, as seen in the Holy Scriptures - not for what he said, but for the example he set. In Antioch, around AD 50, Peter refused to sit at the table with Gentile converts. In doing this before converts, he gave the false impression that the First Council of Jerusalem had wrongly taught that Mosaic ceremonial precepts, including the prohibition on Jews from eating with "unclean" Gentiles, did not compel the Catholic Church. It was for this incident that S. Paulo admonished S. Pedro directly and in public. Another example is Pope Liberius, around A.D. 357, who erred in publicly arguing for an equivocal statement about the Faith that could be interpreted in a sense favorable to Aryan heresy. And he also erred (under duress, when he was in exile) in unjustly condemning and excommunicating - in reality, only giving the appearance of excommunicating - Saint Athanasius, who was defending the Faith in this matter. Pope Liberius, who was the first Pope not to be canonized by the Church, was wrong, because Athanasius was teaching Catholic doctrine - the true doctrine, the infallible doctrine - taught infallibly by the Council of Nicaea. In the case of Pope John XXII, which I have already mentioned, the Pope who succeeded him unfailingly defined against the doctrine of John XXII. In addition, Pope Honorius was condemned for helping and supporting heresy, as I mentioned earlier. Yes, it is a historical fact that Popes can err in the Catholic Faith; they can even teach mistakes. But the definitions cannot go wrong -never. Whenever we are faced with the question: "Are we to believe the Pope or the infallible definition," we believe the infallible definition for not ending up with the mistake, and possibly lose our souls. When the Pope is not speaking infallibly by means of a solemn definition, it is certainly possible that he will say something that is wrong, as was the case with Pope John XXII when, in his sermons, he denied the immediate existence of the Beatific Vision. If a Pope can make mistakes, then Cardinals, bishops and priests can certainly be mistaken in his teachings and opinions. Bishops can make mistakes, priests can make mistakes, Father Gruner can certainly make mistakes. But the Church's dogmatic definitions can never go wrong. That is why God presented them through the infallible Magisterium of His Church, so that we can always know the truth in times of crisis.

Question: But how can a priest disagree with the Pope or, for example, with a Vatican Cardinal on a question of the Faith? 

Another issue that needs to be understood is that just because a priest like Father Gruner or Father Smith is lower in rank than Cardinal Ratzinger or the Pope does not mean that everything the Pope or Cardinal say is necessarily right, and that a priest who does not agree with them on any theological statement they make is necessarily wrong. That is why the Church has infallible definitions. It is by comparing any teaching that is presented to us with the solemn and infallible definitions that we see if it is true or if it is wrong - no and by the position that someone occupies in the hierarchy. In fact, it was a layman, a lawyer named Eusébio, who indicated that Nestorius, an influential Archbishop in Ephesus, was wrong when he denied that Mary was the Mother of God. Eusébio got up during Mass, on Christmas Day, and denounced Nestorius for preaching a heresy. And this was when the "high ranking" clergy and bishops had remained silent in the face of Nestorius' heresy. So it turns out that a simple lay person can be right, and everyone else can be wrong. The truth does not depend on numbers or hierarchical position; the truth was revealed by Christ and God the Father through Sacred Scripture and Tradition, and was solemnly defined by the Catholic Church and always taught by the Catholic Church.

Question: You also mentioned that the danger in relation to the Faith is clearly seen when the solemn dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Faith are contradicted. Can you give us an example to illustrate this statement? 

That is how the heresy of Arianism brought confusion to the Church from 336 to 381 A.D. People should know the history of Arianism. Arianism was condemned in 325; however, he started again in 336. From 336, he ended up winning about 90% of the bishops before being defeated 50 years later, to the point that even the great Saint Athanasius was "excommunicated" by the Pope in the year 360. In 381, Arianism had been defeated by the First Council of Constantinople. However, it remained active for some time between 360 and 380. One reason the Aryans triumphed for some time was that they "succeeded" in attacking a dogma that had been solemnly and infallibly defined by the Council of Nicaea in 325 - that Christ is God of God, Light of Light, true God of God true; generated, not created, consubstantial to the Father. This solemn and infallible definition is in the Creed of the Council of Nicaea, which we say every Sunday at Mass. They subverted the definition, leading many "believers" to argue to replace it with a false definition, which was not infallible. In 336 they replaced the Greek word Homoousion with the word Homoiousion. The word Homoousion means "consubstantial" to the Father. For God the Son to be consubstantial to the Father, the Son is not only God but also the same God who is the Father, so that the substance of the Father is the substance of the Son, although the Person of the Father is not the Person of the Son. Thus, there are three Persons in one God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - but there is only one God in the three Persons. This is the mystery of the Holy Trinity. The new word Homoiousion, however, means "of substance similar to the Father." Thus, the phrase "consubstantial to the Father" - a crucial phrase, which we say in the Creed of Nicaea - has been changed to "of substance similar to the Father" or "as the father." And so, the Aryans introduced the confusion, adding a letter to the word Homoousion to create a new word with a new meaning: Homoiousion. They attacked a solemn definition, saying that the new definition would be better than the solemn definition. But, of course, the new definition could not be better than the solemn definition, because the solemn definition is infallible. By adding a single letter to a single word, the Aryans canceled the infallible definition. This paved the way for Aryans and semi-Aryans, which even led to fighting. There were people who were martyred, persecuted, expelled into the desert, exiled and so on, all because of an infallible dogma being changed. Saint Athanasius was forced to go into exile five times by the Synod of Bishops of Egypt. But he was right, and they were all wrong - because he remained true to the infallible definition, regardless of what others said.

Question: What can we learn from this example? 

In 325, the solemn definition of the Council of Nicaea was infallible, but many people did not understand at the time that the definitions of the Faith are infallible. The difference between that time and now is that in AD 325 the faithful did not yet have a solemn definition saying that the definitions of the Faith were infallible. In 1870, Vatican Council I solemnly and infallibly defined the infallibility of solemn definitions. Now we only know, infallibly, that solemn definitions are infallible. You can't go wrong - never. Perhaps the Faithful of that time can be excused for being deceived by heretics. But today we have no excuse if we are led by heretics to give up the defense of solemn definitions. In 1870, the Church defined solemn definitions as infallible, and therefore our defense - our first line of defense and our last line of defense - consists of solemn definitions. The solemn definitions judge everyone. They are infallible by themselves - ex sese, to use the Latin expression used by Vatican Council I. If people had understood this in 325 and 336, they would not have replaced the old definition - which was infallible - with a new one. But this is what is happening again today. We are judging things in the light of Vatican Council II rather than judging Vatican Council II in the light of infallible definitions. Infallible definitions are the immutable standard by which we measure all doctrines, just as a 100 cm rod is the immutable standard for measuring one meter. We cannot suddenly decide that a meter is only 95 centimeters long. Everything in Faith must be measured by the standard of infallible definitions. Even the Popes' pronouncements must be measured and weighed by this standard. And this is the crucial point, and that is why Our Lady spoke of the dogma of the Faith. And so, what we have seen since the Second Vatican Council is an attack, a subtle attack against solemn definitions. We had a so-called pastoral council that refused to speak with solemn definitions and - according to some people - went against certain solemn definitions. It is the solemn definitions that must judge the Council, and not the other way around. Vatican II cannot be a super-council that overlaps all other councils. On the contrary, Vatican II must be judged in the light of the solemn definitions of the previous Councils and Popes, because Vatican II has not given us any solemn and infallible definitions. But the excuse that has been used by some influential bishops is this: we want to be pastoral, we don't want to have a voice to condemn.

Question: What is wrong with not wanting to have a voice to condemn? 

The very decision not to condemn errors and heresies is the explanation given to explain how Vatican II did not arrive at any solemn definitions. The solemn definitions must necessarily say: "this is the Catholic Faith", and therefore, by strict logical implication, also say: "whoever says otherwise, be anathema" - that it be separated from the Faith and the Church. In other words, one must believe in order to be saved. For this reason, definitions must also state, explicitly or implicitly, that anyone who does not believe in them will be condemned. This is the reason why anathema is usually included in the definitions. Due to the subtle error of refusing to make solemn definitions, the door was opened to the use of words and language that can point in the opposite direction of solemn definitions, and this was exactly the trick used by Aryans in the 4th century to cause confusion. . And they almost managed to dominate the whole Church. And this has been happening for 39 years, since the opening of the Second Vatican Council. Here we see what Our Lady of Fatima was talking about. It went straight to the heart of the matter. He said that the dogma of the Faith would always be preserved in Portugal - but, obviously, dogma would be lost in other countries. If this were not the case, the observation about Portugal would be meaningless. Q: Still on the Third Secret, what else should we remember about the Pope's address on May 13, 1982? We must not forget that the Pope said that our Faith is being undermined. Now, to undermine the base, the foundation of our salvation is to undermine the Faith, and to undermine anything is to attack it by betrayal - using tricks, not attacking openly. And, in general terms, undermining a given structure is done from the inside. Thus, Our Lady was telling us that we should be especially vigilant regarding insidious attacks on our Faith, at this point in the history of the Church. Q: What did the Pope tell us about the Third Secret on May 13, 2000? In his sermon during the beatification of Jacinta and Francisco, Pope John Paul II warned us of the dangers that today threaten our salvation, saying that "The message of Fatima is an appeal to conversion, warning Humanity not to play the game of 'dragon' whose 'tail dragged a third of the stars from heaven and threw them on the earth' (Rev. 12: 4). " With this statement, Pope John Paul II revealed that a third of the Catholic clergy are being dragged by the "serpent" - he spoke in the present. He informed us that the Bible prophecy described in Apoc. 12: 3-4 applies to our time: "And another sign was seen in the sky: behold, it is a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns: and on its heads it had seven diadems: and its tail swept a third of the stars in the sky and threw them down ... "(Rev. 12: 3-4) But the Pope did not say "one third of the Catholic clergy"; said (quoting Rev. 12: 3-4) that a third of the stars in the sky will be thrown to the earth by the dragon's tail. He did not explain what the "stars in the sky" are. We must go to Catholic comments to understand that the "stars of heaven" are the consecrated souls of the clergy: Cardinals, bishops, priests. Pope John Paul II may not have said "one third of the Catholic clergy", but said "one third of the stars in the sky". In the language of the Bible, the "stars of heaven" are those who are placed in heaven to light the way of anyone who wants to go to heaven. This passage has traditionally been interpreted in Catholic comments as meaning that a third of the clergy - that is, Cardinals, bishops, priests - will fall from their consecrated state and will be working for the devil. This clergy is undermining the Catholic Faith, undermining our salvation. Commenting Apoc. 12: 3-4, Father Herman B. Kramer, in his book The Book of Destiny, underlined that the red dragon - symbol of the devil, which could also symbolize Communism, because the emblematic color of Communism is red - great cause affliction to the Church, because the mine inside. Father Herman Kramer tells us, referring to the third of the stars in the sky: "He is a third of the clergy" and adds that "'one third' of the stars will follow the dragon" .2 Therefore, one third of the Catholic clergy will work for the devil , possibly under the influence of Communism, to destroy the Church from within.

Father Herman Kramer goes on to say that, through the apostate clergy, the devil will be able to force in the Church "the acceptance of a non-Christian morality, false doctrines, commitments to error, or obedience to civil authorities in violation of conscience. . " Furthermore, it suggests that "The symbolic meaning of the dragon's tail may reveal that the clergy who are ripe for apostasy will take over influential positions in the Church, winning them over by hypocrisy, deception and flattery." The clergy that follow the dragon - that is, the devil - will include "those who have been careless in preaching the truth and in admonishing sinners through a good example, but who, on the contrary, have sought popularity by being indolent and slaves to human respect. , "as well as those who" fear for their own interests and do not speak out against perverse practices within the Church "and the bishops" who detest righteous priests who dare to tell the truth ".3 Father Herman Kramer also noted the following, as to the state of the Catholic Church in the times prophesied in Apoc. 12: 3-4: "The apostolic democracy founded by Our Lord may have given way to an absolute monarchy, in which the episcopate rules with an oriental despotism. Priests can be reduced to a state of servility and humiliating sycophancy. Government for reason, justice and love it may have been superseded by the absolute power of the Bishop, from whom every act and word must be unquestionably accepted, without recourse to facts, truth or justice. Conscience may have lost its right to guide the actions of priests and may be ignored or condemned. Diplomacy, expediency and other tricks can be identified as the greatest virtues. "4 Therefore, it seems very clear that Pope John Paul II sent the Church a warning, in the sense that the Third Secret concerns the clergy; that a third of the Catholic clergy are following the devil and dragging souls with them. What the Pope could have meant if not this, in view of the comments he certainly knows, when he quoted Apoc. 12: 3-4 and warned us about the dragon's tail? As we have seen, this is not just my opinion; it is common ground that the stars in the sky are the Catholic clergy. Thus, the Holy Father himself revealed what is in the Third Secret. Because, as is known, the reference to Revelation 12: 3-4 does not appear anywhere in what has already been revealed in the Message of Fatima, and therefore must be in the Third Secret, in the words of Our Lady that have not yet been released, although the Pope had ordered its publication at the time he gave that sermon at Fatima. In conclusion, we can see that undermining the Catholic Faith today, within the Catholic Church, by a third of the Catholic clergy is an essential part of the Third Secret. The betrayal of a third of the clergy is mentioned in the Message of Fatima, and this betrayal is happening today. Many ecclesiastics are betraying the Church with scandalous behavior. The evidence for the realization of the Third Secret is before us, for all to see. In his sermon at Fatima, the Pope warned us of what is happening today. Thus, a third of the Catholic clergy are promoting, directly or indirectly, false doctrines, opposed to the dogma of the Faith, against defined doctrines. Now, the definitions must, by strict implication, anathematize the error. It is in its very nature that anyone who believes in the opposite error is separated from the Catholic Faith and, for that reason, is separated from the Catholic Church. To be saved, we must belong to the Catholic Church.volume_upcontent_copyshare

Question: How do you belong to the Catholic Church? 

We must be baptized in the Church; we must continue to accept the Pope's authority to govern the Church, as Jesus Christ taught and His Church defined it; and we must be faithful to the whole and inviolate Catholic Faith. Thus, if one believes in the opposite of a definite dogma, he is not only separated from the doctrine of the Faith by that act, but also from the Church itself. If he is separated from the Church, he is evidently anathema - he is condemned for believing in a condemned doctrine. This is the essence of any definition: if the definition says that this is true, the opposite of what is defined is false. And whoever follows this false doctrine will go to hell. And so, St. Paul said, "If I, or an angel from heaven, or whoever is teaching a doctrine other than the doctrine I taught you, be anathema." May he be cursed, be separated from God and the Saints, and go to hell. All definitions - whether explicitly or implicitly - condemn error, but Vatican II refused to solemnly define doctrine or condemn error. At the Second Vatican Council, they tried to make a so-called pastoral council, which would not condemn error. But, by failing to condemn the error, the Second Vatican Council effectively refused, in general terms, to exercise its infallible Magisterium. Therefore, everything Vatican II taught must be judged by the Church's infallible teachings - and not the other way around. The Church's infallible teachings cannot be judged by Vatican II. The Second Vatican Council lacks authority, insofar as it has not exercised its supreme Magisterium, the power to define doctrine and to anathematize error. And to that extent, everything that was said in Vatican II but was not infallibly taught before Vatican II, must be examined in the light of the dogmatic definitions of the Catholic Church. However, this is not what has been done. What happens today is that they are redefining "the Faith" - it is not the Faith - they are redefining it in the light of Vatican II, even against the solemn definitions of the Catholic Church. We must hold on to solemn, infallible definitions - which are incapable of making mistakes.

This is why it is especially relevant in our time to remember what Our Lord said: "When the Son of Man returns again, will he find Faith on earth?" And He said, apparently referring to the same time, that "if that were possible, even the elect would be deceived." So what are we to do to avoid being deceived by the appearance of Catholic doctrine of what, in reality, is not Catholic doctrine but the opposite of it? We will avoid being deceived if we are faithful - with all our power, with all our heart, our strength, our will, and especially our mind - to infallible definitions. These cannot go wrong; being faithful to them, we will maintain the Catholic Faith. If we are not faithful to them, we may well be deceived, just like anyone else. That is why it is important to remember that Our Lady spoke of the dogma of the Faith. The dogma of the Faith is determined by solemn definitions of the Catholic Church.

Question: Why is the Pope John Paul II did not tell us more clearly?

As in his 1982 statements, the Pope did not say that the Faith would be undermined, but said that the basis of our salvation was being undermined. But what is the basis of our salvation? It is our Faith. We must understand that the Pope is saying these things to us, but not yet openly. On the one hand, the Pope thought he should speak because - like Our Lady - he could not remain silent; and he spoke very publicly and in a very public place, among devotees of Our Lady - that is, before the crowd at Fatima, before a million people in 1982 when he spoke of the basis of our salvation being undermined. He also spoke of the apocalyptic threats - or almost - that hovered over humanity in 1982. In the year 2000, he talked about "one third of the stars in the sky". But he did not speak clearly enough for the common man to understand him without a brief explanation. The Pope told us that the Third Secret concerns the dangers to the Faith and that one third of the Catholic Clergy is involved. However, the Pope did not say these things directly - but in a somewhat hidden way, in a language designed for cultured people to understand. Perhaps I didn't want to scare the simplest out of them without giving them a chance to get an explanation. Sister Lucy has often said that, in these times of confusion, in these times of "diabolical disorientation", there would be people in positions of greatest authority in the Church - people of great responsibility (clearly speaking, Cardinals and bishops and priests) who would be "blind leading other blind people ". It is a spiritual punishment for our sins for not paying attention to the warning given to us in Fatima. We were struck by the fact that the Pope did not think he could speak freely, perhaps because he was surrounded by priests, bishops and Cardinals who are undermining the Faith, who are part of that third. Either the Pope doesn't know who they are, or he knows who they are and thinks he can't talk about security and survive. Whatever the reason, he did not speak very clearly - but he did speak clearly enough for us to deduce where he is going. Jesus once said to His disciples, "Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear" (that is, whoever has ears to hear, let him understand).

Question: How is the foundation of our salvation - the Catholic Faith - being undermined? 

The Pope underlined that the attack on the Catholic Faith comes from within. He said: "Can the Mother, with all the strength of the love she has in the Holy Spirit and who desires the salvation of all, can she keep silent when she sees the very basis of her children's salvation undermined?" The word "undermine" implies that a foundation is weakening from the inside. It is attacked from the outside; but it is mined on the inside, where an attack is not expected and everyone's surveillance has weakened - because it is assumed that one is among "friends". Faith is constantly being attacked from the outside; but, as the Third Secret tells us, in our time the Faith is also being attacked by "false brothers".