Joanna Bogle Explains Third Secret

41 responses

  1. In case the links given in my “blue” comment (I reduced the blue to the headline as I think it’s maybe too, too much to put several paragraphs in blue) … Anyway, for those who may still need convincing that Joanna Bogle is very far wide of the mark in the matter of the Third Secret and Vatican suppression thereof, here’s an article which RCA Victor, by “coincidence”, emailed me a few days ago. Even before publication of this latest JB gaffe, our American blogger was on the ball 😀

  2. I was absolutely infuriated by this when I read it in the Catholic Herald. The first thing to note is that when someone resorts to mockery they have already lost the argument. Bogle makes no attempt to disprove anything that Fr Gruner wrote (as if she could!) she simply attempts to paint a picture that ridicules anyone who doesn’t accept the party line on Fatima.

    I wonder if Bogle actually believes that Our Lady appeared at Fatima. I’ve often wondered that of those who promote the New Fatima Message – I include all the false friends of Fatima in that eg. TFP, ANF, BNF etc. I think they believe that Fatima is simply a parable,
    encouraging us to pray and do penance.

    Bogle doesn’t once refer to Our Lady’s words in her article. She only claims that “Mary” came to call us to prayer. Well, Our Lady did that at Lourdes. Why bother coming to Fatima and performing an unprecedented public miracle if all Our Lady wanted to do was call us to prayer?

    Regarding this business of the Publication of the Third Secret in 2000, Bogle ignores the evidence. She’s either too stupid to understand it, too lazy to search for it or too bad to publicise it.

    Most scholars agree that the Third Secret begins with the line, “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.” After that Our Lady said Lucia was to tell no one, before adding that she could tell Francisco. In the Secret published in 2000, why was there no continuation of the phrase, “In Portugal….”?

    The text of the Third Secret released by the Vatican is handwritten on four sheets of paper. Father Joaquin Alonso, official Fatima archivist for sixteen years, reports in his book that, “Lucy tells us that she wrote it on a sheet of paper. In a taped interview, Charles Fiore quoted Malachi Martin as saying the following regarding the text of the Third Secret, “I cooled my heels in the corridor outside the Holy Father’s apartments, while my boss, Cardinal Bea, was inside debating with the Holy Father, and with a group of other bishops and priests, and two young Portuguese seminarians, who translated the letter, a single page, written in Portuguese, for all those in the room.”

    Sister Lucia herself tells us that she wrote the Thrid Secret in the form of a letter. She wrote, “I communicated the third part in a letter to the Bishop of Leiria.” Also, Canon Galamba, an advisor to the Bishop of Leiria, is quoted as saying, “When the bishop refused to open the letter, Lucy made him promise that it would definitely be opened and read to the world either at her death or in 1960, whichever came first.” The Vatican did not release a letter in 2000.

    The text released by the Vatican in 2000 wasn’t exactly pleasant reading, but did it refer to anything in the Book of Revelation? When Lucia was asked about the Third Secret, she said it was “in the Gospels and in the Apocalypse”. However, in a 1980 interview for the German magazine Stimme des Glaubens published in October 1981, John Paul II was asked explicitly to speak about the third secret. He said that the Church was to go through a time of great trial. I don’t believe anything released by the Vatican indicates that the Church will endure a great trial or relates to anything to the Book of Revelation.

    Joanna Bogle would do well to meditate on these truths and examine her conscience. It is despicable for her to attempt to damage the reputation of Father Gruner, who gave his life promoting the message of Fatima. Shame on her!

    • Petrus,

      I was absolutely furious as well when I read that Catholic Herald column by Joanna Bogle. She really takes the biscuit. Her ignorance is just beyond belief. I thought it was very good that you pointed out that she didn’t even once quote Our Lady in her article. She is just out to get at the Fatima Center, especially Father Gruner, rest his soul.

      God forgive her but she really is a menace, as Therese says.

  3. Petrus

    Well said. As Editor reports, JB is much more of an Anglican than a Catholic. She loves the remnants of English traditions regarding the Church’s Lenten food practices/recipes, and flowers named after Our Lady, (which I share), but that seems to be the extent of her “Catholic” tradition. She’s a menace.

  4. Petrus, and others,

    For some time now, posts have been “disappearing” but they don’t really. I find them in the Trash folder, for some reason that is beyond me. So, I suggest (again!) that you remember to copy your comment before posting, because, equally unfathomably, so to speak, if you re-post it, it usually goes up on the second attempt.

    Anyway, I’ve released your original post now, Petrus. So, now it’s a case of “post one, get another one posted free!”

  5. I agree wholeheartedly with Petrus’ assessment of Mizzzz Bogle. Funny how every time one of the party line mouthpieces writes a hit piece against the truth about Fatima, they end up (a) making fools of themselves, and (b) confirming beyond a shadow of a doubt that the party line is an incoherent, irrational concoction of lies and propaganda. And esp. calumny, directed against the saintly Father Gruner, RIP, Priest in Good Standing (note well, Cardinal Burke, you of the shameful silence regarding Pope Francis’ scandals-du-jour).

    And what about the apparently Occasionally Catholic Herald? Why are people like Bogle given column space in this newspaper? One can only conclude that the mission of the OCH is to destroy the true Catholic Faith from within, and replace it with one that is acceptable to the world – i.e. one that isn’t Catholic at all, but attempts to masquerade as such.

    The attempt has failed….for over 50 years now….

    • RCA Victor

      …one that isn’t Catholic at all, but attempts to masquerade as such.

      RCAV, this excellent summation can be applied to many in the Church today and, upon reflection, perhaps here is the essential definition of a SHILL

  6. RCA Victor,

    I wrote to the Editor of the Catholic Herald (Luke Coppen) a couple of years ago to ask him his age. He replied, so now I know that at the time of his reply (29 August, 2014) he was 38 years old. That makes him 40 right now. Signed, The Green-Eyed Monster…

    The point being that, self-evidently, being a mere child, he has not the proverbial clue. Indeed, I think it’s safe to say that, unless they’ve somehow come to see that there is something seriously wrong within the Church and set about educating themselves, nobody born after 1962 has the proverbial clue.

    So, he will hear Joanna’s posh voice and assume that she knows what she is talking about, especially since, at one time (not for a good while, unless I’ve missed it) she used to be called on by the various secular media outlets to comment on things Catholic, and always did so as if she were practising for a real live boxing match.

    Anyway, I suspect she is sending material in for publishing and poor wee Luke Coppen (Editor) does the gentlemanly thing and finds a column to keep on her right side. Being on her left (wrong) side, is no fun at all, as evidenced by her attacks on Fr Gruner RIP and anyone who dares to challenge the Vatican party line on Fatima.

    • Editor,

      I also have to wonder who is Joanna Bogle’s intended audience. Is she trying to score brownie points with the feckless Scottish bishops? Did one of them decide it was a slow news day for the revolution and order another hit piece on Father Gruner?

      To ask this question another way: does anyone really read the (O)CH? And of the presumably minuscule number of NO Catholics who do read it, how many of them really care about the Third Secret of Fatima?

      My wild guess is that this latest piece of stupidity was ordered by the bishops, for reasons unknown, and that Bogle was merely being an obedient propagandist.

  7. I purchased the ‘pamphlet’ (for want of a better description) published by the Vatican in 2000 which puported to contain the Third Secret.

    I remember commenting at the time that, if this was it, I could see no reason why it could not have been published decades earlier. Like Petrus, the phrase ‘In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved’ seemed to me to demand a continuation that was not there.

    Now, I do not believe that Pope Benedict is a liar. But he only had access to the Third Secret from when he became Prefect of the Congregation for the doctrine of the Faith in 1981, by which time the Secret was certainly kept in the secret archives of that Congregation, the successor to the pre-Vatican II Holy Office.

    I remember reading somewhere–unfortunately I cannot remember where, and if anyone could refresh my memory in this regard, I would be very grateful–that Paul VI did not wish to read the Secret and never did so, but that John Paul II asked for it as soon as he was elected Pope. Seemingly remarkably (but unremarkably to those of us who have experience of bureaucracies at a certain level) it was not to be found and his aides had to contact John XXIII’s private secretary who was pleased to indicate a certain drawer in a certain desk in the Papal Appartments.

    Could it be that between the death of Pope John–who certainly saw something too terrible to publish–and John Paul II something was, as it were, subtracted from the Fatima papers?

    I am no conspiracy theorist, but if the Third Secret regarded the aftermath of Vatican II, I have no difficulty at all in believing that there were those active under Paul VI who would have gone to any length to have it suppressed, such was the idolatry which had grown up around ‘the’ Council.

    • Prognosticum,

      Obviously, I have no idea who your “very good authority” is, but one of the best sources of information about the Third Secret is Antonio Socci, an Italian journalist who refused to believe the “conspirary theorists” to the point where he set out to investigate the matter himself, in order to prove that the Vatican line was the truth. His evidence proved otherwise and he wrote a book entitled “The Fourth Secret of Fatima” in which he details the evidence that the entirety of the Third Secret has not been published.

      He also includes this nugget about Paul VI:

      2…Sure enough Paolini found the ticking bomb inside the documents.

      “By comparing that booklet published by the Vatican with the archive documents that the secretary of John XXIII sent me,” said Paolini, “a very telling contradiction comes immediately to the eyes of the author in ‘the reserved notes’, with a stamp of approval on it [official seals]. It is certified that Pope Paul VI read the Secret on the afternoon of Thursday, June 27, 1963, while the official June 26, 2000 Vatican document affirms, ‘Paul VI read the content on March 27, 1965, and sent the envelope to the Sant’Uffizio’s archives, deciding not to publish the text.” [Emphasis added by me] Click here to read entire article.

      Pope Benedict changed his story. Cardinal Sodano led the press conference and Cardinal Ratzinger deferred to him throughout – “as Cardinal Sodano says…” sort of comments. Then, when he became Pope, he made it clear that there certainly was more to the Third Secret. So, whether or not he can be called a “liar” is neither here nor there. He certainly did not tell the full truth.

      And anyway, I don’t see Joanna Bogle joining up the dots here and making the point that if Pope Benedict is no liar, then the Fatima seers, two of them beatified (Jacinta and Francisco) must have fibbed. Odd how desperately people will refuse to allow for the possibility that a pope is not perhaps entirely truthful all the time, while readily allowing for the fact that those publicly stated to be in Heaven now, might well be liars. .

    • Prognosticum,

      #16 from the website to which you linked: “16. On June 27, 1963, two years before the “official account” claims he read the Third Secret, Pope Paul VI opened the Capovilla envelope, which was retrieved from John XXIII’s Barbarigo desk, read its contents, inquired of Capovilla about the notations on the outside, resealed the envelope, and said nothing further about it to Capovilla.”

      This affirms Editor’s Paolini quote below. If it is permissible, I would be interested in knowing the source of your claim that Paul VI never read the Third Secret.

  8. I have no difficulty in deferring to Socci on the issue of Paul VI.

    My point is simply that the papers could have been tampered with long before Cardinal Ratzinger had access to them.

    • Prognosticum,

      In the absence of very clear and indisputable evidence that what you say is true, I’m afraid I am holding to my view – taken from the words of the Popes themselves on the subject – that they have deliberately withheld the full Message of Fatima. The reasons given are insulting; that the faithful would be afraid, would stir up “sensationalism”. Well all the more reason to tell us the truth and let us make up our own minds. Our Lady is far better at judging what we need to know than any pope, and it is nothing short of crass arrogance for them to imply, by their failure to fully disclose the entirety of her Message, that she didn’t know what she was talking about, that God had made a mistake by sending her to earth to forewarn us of what was to come.

      Further, Pope Benedict revealed the extent of his own lack of Faith when he told his biographer in a full length book interview, that he really did not subscribe to the idea that consecrating Russia in the manner prescribed by Our Lady at Fatima would bring world peace, dismissing that as “too simple”. This, of course, the commentators took as evidence of his great academic intellect, when it is nothing more or less than manifest evidence of his lack of divine and Catholic Faith.

      When he survived the assassination attempt, Pope John Paul II immediately sent for the Fatima file and said of the sparing of his life, “I know to whom I owe this”. Our Lady of Fatima, obviously, because his first journey on release from hospital and recovery was to Fatima where he placed the bullet which had coursed through his body, in the crown of Our Lady. I’ve recently heard that they found a small crevice in that crown in which the bullet fitted perfectly, but I can’t verify the truth of that claim which may simply be one of those pious rumours which sometimes take root, after an observation (imagined or otherwise) on the part of a member of the devout faithful. Whatever, Pope John Paul II apparently felt he had to indicate in various speeches, that the full truth about Fatima had not been released. This subject is thoroughly covered on the http://www.fatima.org website. Worth spending a good amount of time perusing that site because it is the ONLY website to give the full, undiluted truth about Fatima, and always with thorough documentation.

      • Editor,
        “!’m afraid I am holding to my view – taken from the words of the Popes themselves on the subject – that they have deliberately withheld the full Message of Fatima. The reasons given are insulting; that the faithful would be afraid, would stir up “sensationalism”.

        Well said Editor. That pernicious abomination Ecumenism is more than likely the real reason why Our Lady’s request has been ignored.

    • Prognosticum

      I don’t think there was any tampering with the papers concerning Fatima and the Third Secret. It has been fairly well demonstrated by Fr. Gruner, Brother Michael of the Trinity, Chris Ferrara and others that the influence of Fr. Edouard Dhanis S.J. colours conciliar thinking on the Message and Secret of Fatima even to this day.

      You may recall that Dhanis’ theory is that there are two Fatimas, Fatima I and Fatima II. Fatima I is the true and believable part, Fatima II the flowery additions that Sister Lucy subconsciously introduced into the “authentic” texts. He blames her pious childhood memories for this.

      It was pretty clever of Dhanis, devilishly so in my estimation, to present the liberals in the Church with such a convenient conscience salver that allowed them to continue with their agenda to humanise Catholicism.

      That’s how the term “authentic Fatima Message” came to be coined, it was to distinguish it from the supposed unauthentic additions Sister Lucy innocently but mistakenly made “in good faith”. To think that any reasonable person could ever believe that heaven chose a feeble minded, emotionally disturbed instrument to convey so serious a message to the world borders on blasphemy. But that’s what Dhanis argued and what every Pope since has believed.

      So when they speak of the full Message and Secret of Fatima having been revealed, they don’t consider that they have in any way lied. This is what they actually believe. The parts not revealed are, for them, false additions that do not form part of the “authentic” message. God have mercy on them!

      If you read through the original release of the Third Secret in 2000, you will find Fr. Dhanis being highly praised in it. This tells us just how influential Dhanis’ perverse theory remains to the present day. And let us not forget that Cardinal Ratzinger was a very great admirer of Dhanis long before any of this came to light. Dhanis was, of course, a liberal theologian, not even qualified in Mariology. It is so easy to spot “The Father of Lies” at work in Dhanis’ theory. How it came to be universally accepted at the highest levels in the Church is truly a mystery of iniquity, or “diabolical disorientation,” as Sister Lucy would have put it.

      As for Joanna Bogle and the Catholic Herald. I cannot get animated any more with what these sources report . For me, they are superficial mouthpieces more interested in staying popular than defending what is true.

      I don’t even think they do any proper journalistic research before writing up their columns. I’m afraid the days of sound Catholic journalism are long gone from the mainstream press outlets. They are now all liberal rags of different shades, including the Catholic Herald with its semblance of orthodoxy, which makes it all the more subversive of truth. I just ignore these false Catholic papers now. The sooner they go under, the better.

  9. I’ve realised that Christopher Ferrara has posted Part I of his response to this latest nonsense from Joanna Bogle. His article, dated 1 August, can be read here

      • RCA Victor,

        I’m dipping into Ferrara’s piece in between dealing with other matters before I hasten to another appointment (!) but this passage is priceless in its sheer simplicity and common sense:

        “The mere fact of the Vatican’s absurd reliance on Sodano and his successor Cardinal Tarcisio (“penthouse”) Bertone to promulgate an “official version” of the Third Secret demonstrates that something must be missing: namely, the Blessed Virgin’s own explanation of its meaning. It is impossible to believe that God would have left the interpretation of His mother’s precious message-warning to the Church and all of humanity to a pair of scandal-plagued Vatican officials.”

        It’s hard to imagine how he can say any more, but I look forward to checking later!

  10. I have had the privilege of seeing the crown at close hand and its image is readily available on the internet. The bullet–a fiercesome looking thing– hangs down from the orb which surmounts it. It would not surprise me if it fitted perfectly in an already existing space. This would be most fitting, if you will pardon the pun.

    But I have a question for you. Given that the Book of the Apocalypse foretells times of great upheval before Christ’s return, how does this square with the peace which would be inaugurated through the consecreation of the world to Our Lady? It would seem that this peace would not be destined to be lasting. Why?

    • Prognosticum,

      My understanding is that we are currently experiencing the “Minor Chastisement,” which is a foretaste of the coming of the anti-Christ (“the great upheaval,” aka the Great Chastisement), and that the period of peace, of undetermined duration, which follows the Consecration, will be, in effect, sandwiched in-between the two chastisements.

    • Prognosticum,

      Our Lady said there would be a “period of peace” – not peace that would last forever, or even for a particularly long time. I’m not sure about why that might be.

      I do hope, however, that RCA Victor is wrong because we’d just be getting used to the period of peace when the Great Chastisement of which he speaks, would be upon us and a lax soul like moi, yes, even me, myself, would be likely to be found enjoying a coffee and chocolate biscuit if not a fresh cream meringue, when the disaster strikes. Goodness – I do hope RCA Victor’s got it wrong, big time!

      If I had to take an intelligent guess, I’d say that with the arrival of the promised period of peace, knowing that it has resulted from the Consecration of Russia, we would experience a re-flowering of the Catholic Faith as is likely to happen, albeit on a smaller, or individual, scale, with any miracle. Then, when we settle down to everyday life again, and the memory of the wonder of it all fades, the cycle would begin again, of sorrow for sins, fidelity, sin and infidelity, punishment, repentance, etc – and so on until the last day.

      That’s my tuppence-worth. Maybe aye, maybe naw…

  11. Editor,

    I daresay that by the time the period of peace is over, you and I will be pushing up daisies. But, as your comedian Spike Milligan once said. “”I’m not afraid of dying, I just don’t want to be there when it happens!”

  12. I’ve been wondering whether Bogle’s cheap shot at “Fatimists” and Fr. Gruner is just another way for the Scottish bishops to take a cheap shot at traditionalists. After all, isn’t it mostly traditionalists who are intimately familiar with the Fatima messages and their import, and take them deadly seriously? Or is that just a gross stereotype? (I’m thinking of a magazine I found once in my former NO parish’s magazine rack, “Medjugorje Today” – i.e. the NO substitute for Fatima)

    I’ve just started reading Christianity for Modern Pagans by Peter Kreeft (about Pascal’s Pensees), and came across this little nugget in the Preface:

    Those who dismiss Pascal with the label of “Jansenism” are like those who call all orthodox Christians “fundamentalists”: the label reveals more about the labeler than about the labeled. (It usually reveals these three things: that he does not seek truth, facts or accuracy; that he rejects orthodox, supernaturalistic Christianity; and that he thinks of himself as a “progressive,” which today means a decadent.)

    Have a good look in the mirror, Mzzzzz Bogle…

    • RCA Victor,

      I doubt the Scots Bishops would bother having cheap shots at “Fatimists” – they just don’t care. They have the statue and occasional ceremonies in churches to “celebrate” (the buzz word) the First Saturdays, Brown Scapular, but never anything of the substance of the Fatima message. Like Joanna they’ve latched on to the “prayer and penance” rhetoric and omitted all mention of the rest. There is no movement for orthodoxy in Scotland; we are the only group doing this work – tragically. So, given their stated policy to ignore us, and keep the faithful in the parishes from learning about our existence as far as possible, they’ve nothing to fear. Most of the Catholics in Scotland have no clue about the dire state of the Church here, so the Bishops won’t worry about the odd person here or there who does know the truth. What harm can this minority do, really, to the Modernist cause?

      In any event, she’s English, lives in London, and is unlikely to be highly regarded by the Bishops of England & Wales. More likely than not, they will regard her as a useful idiot. Very sad.

  13. Joanna Bogle has a problem because she was always a great fan of Mother Angelica of EWTN. Well, Mother Angelica was one of the many who believe the Vatican suppressed the explanation part of the vision in the Third Secret. A quote from Chris Ferrara’s article refuting Joanna Bogle: “Mother Angelica spoke for millions of Catholics when she declared before a worldwide audience on live television: “I happen to be one of those who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing.”

  14. Poor Joanna Bogle. I feel quite sorry for her, really. She seems always to be angry, even angry looking when she appeared on TV, yet I think she thinks she is genuinely fighting to defend the faith.

    Our Lady of Fatima will enlighten her surely. Then she will stop persecuting the prophets of Fatima and aim for the real enemies of the Church.

  15. I just sent the following letter to Mr. Luke Coppen at the Herald:

    Dear Mr. Coppen:

    I believe you owe it to your readers to publish Mr. Christopher Ferrara’s three-part refutation of Joanna Bogle’s shameful column on Fatima, which was nothing more than a series of cheap shots against so-called “Fatimists” – i.e. those who believe, and with weighty reasons, that the Third Secret of Fatima has yet to be revealed (and that the Consecration of Russia has yet to be performed, as requested by Our Lady).

    If Bogle’s shabby column is what you consider appropriate nourishment for your Catholic readership, then, frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.

    Mr. Ferrara’s columns may be found here:

    Part I: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective878.asp
    Part II: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective879.asp
    Part III: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective880.asp

    I trust you will seriously consider upholding the standards of honest journalism, as well as the truth about Fatima, and do the right thing.

    Sincerely yours,

    • RCA Victor

      F A N T A S T I C !

      I’ve corresponded off and on with Luke Coppen for a few years now, and my impression of him is that he tries to be fair according to his own lights (see my earlier comment about his age – he’s a post-Vatican II baby so never taught the Faith properly).

      I believe he will read Christopher Ferrara’s refutation (demolition!) of Joanna’s attack. If he does read the links, he cannot fail to see the truth. So, thank you for sending them to him.

      I’ll email him my opinion as set out here, and ask him to prove me right!

      Some time later… I’ve now emailed Luke Coppen, as promised. Time will tell if my assessment of him is accurate or not.

    • RCA Victor

      An excellent letter. Let us hope that Luke Coppen has the decency to follow up on your advice. I’m not holding my breath!

  16. Bogle is the supreme Fatima dilettante. Always going on about it, but knows NOTHING about it. She read a book on Fatima by Fr Andrew Apostoli (another ‘False Friend of Fatima’) a while back and now she thinks she’s a world-class expert on the subject. Anyway, Chris Ferrara has now published the third part of his response to her. Hopefully this will keep her quiet on the subject. But don’t hold your breath. I’ve put links to all three parts below for bloggers convenience.

    Part One: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective878.asp
    Part Two: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective879.asp
    Part Three: http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective880.asp

  17. Apparently, the Catholic Herald is no longer allowing comments on the blog, so erroneous articles like Joanna’s will go unchallenged in future. Sadly, the sort of people who read the Herald are not that likely to visit some of the better informed Catholic blogs . . .

%d bloggers like this: