The Lying “Lady” of Fatima

  For reasons we will not go into at this point, as it would take us too far off course in this article, Pope John Paul II visited Turkey (a Muslim country) in 1979 – a visit which was not at all welcomed by the Turkish government, being considered (correctly) as papal interference in Turkish affairs.  In addition, Moscow was watching events closely.  This pope was pro-American, anti-USSR (although he was a Communist himself, he supported Catholic-Communism, not Moscow Communism).[61]  The Kremlin wanted him out of the way; and it was not difficult for Soviet agents in Turkey to find and groom a young Turk, Mehmet Ali Agca, as the assassin.

  On 13 May 1981, Ali Agca made the attempt on the life of John Paul II in St Peter’s Square in Rome, firing shots at him.  He was severely wounded, but not killed.

  But there was much more to the attempted assassination than the Soviets making use of a Muslim Turkish hit man.  Note the date on which the assassination attempt was made: 13 May!  The 64th anniversary of the very first Fatima apparition!  We have to ask: was it merely coincidental that, on the very anniversary of the so-called “prophecies” of Fatima, which stated that the pope would be killed by (it was claimed) Communist forces, Pope John Paul II was shot in an assassination attempt?

  Either it was coincidental, or it was not.  If it was coincidental, then there were those in the Vatican hierarchy who swiftly made the most of the situation, and tied the assassination attempt to the “prophecy” of Fatima.  But if it was not coincidental, then we have to accept that there were not merely KGB agents behind the assassination attempt, but Vatican agents as well (which means Jesuit agents).  It means there were those within the inner structures of the Vatican, men desiring the conversion of Russia according to Fatima, who instigated this assassination attempt in conjunction with the Soviets (albeit for widely different reasons), to give global credence to the Fatima apparitions and massive impetus to John Paul II’s work in seeking to undermine the Soviet Union and transfer the centre of power of the international Communist movement from Moscow to Rome.

  Does this second scenario sound too far-fetched?  Perhaps it is.  But it is worth pondering a few points, which cannot be easily explained away.  First, in the words of Avro Manhattan, “It is significant that Ali Agca was acting not so much as an instrument of Islamic mysticism, but also as the instrument of a twilight world where Islam, the Orthodox Church, the Vatican, Soviet Russia, and the U.S. all met in their struggle to further their respective interests.”[62]  A twilight world of agents and double agents, of conflicting and merging interests.  Second, there is the date of the attempted assassination: 13 May.  Yes, coincidences happen.  But doubts arise.  Third, there is the fact that Ali Agca, an expert gunman, did not manage to kill the pope even though he was just metres away, and fired more than one shot.  This caused many to wonder if this was the point all along: merely to wound, not to kill.  The Soviets would have wanted to kill him; but the Jesuits?  Perhaps not.  Perhaps what the Soviets wanted to be a final termination of John Paul’s life, the Jesuits turned into an attempted termination, by a Soviet-hired hit man on that particular date, to give the appearance of fulfilling the Fatima “prophecy” in a symbolic sense (as Ratzinger later claimed).  Fourth, there is the “Muslim connection”.  But more about that a little later.

  Whether the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II on the very anniversary of the first Fatima apparition was coincidental or not, one thing is certain: it played right into the hands of those promoting the message of Fatima concerning Russia and concerning the “bishop dressed in white”.  The symbolism was very powerful indeed.

  Oh the mileage Rome has obtained from the “visions” of Fatima, through the years!  Constantly there is reference to Communism’s war against Rome, and yet Rome’s ultimate victory.  Considering that the Vatican believed, in 2001, that the rise of Gorbachev in the old Soviet Union, and the supposed “changes” that occurred in the USSR and the Eastern European Communist nations in 1989 and 1990, were the beginnings of the conversion of Russia to Romanism, and thus the fulfilment of the “second secret” of Fatima, it is not surprising that when the Vatican chose to release what it told the world was the “third secret”, it would again refer to these things.  But the Vatican’s attempt to make the Romish “Church” look like a suffering martyr is hollow indeed, given the fact that the Papal system has persecuted and shed the blood of millions for many long centuries (Rev. 18:24) – and that Communism itself was a rebellious daughter of the Roman harlot!

  When asked how the Vatican came to its interpretation, as the pope is killed in the “vision” whereas John Paul II was only wounded, Ratzinger replied that the vision’s language is symbolic, and that it does not predict the future, but rather warns what the future may hold if people do not convert and pray.  He added that the vision fitted the twentieth century’s two world wars, Nazism, Communism and other forms of totalitarianism which oppressed the “Church”.  He suggested that the figure of the “bishop in white” might represent a convergence of several twentieth-century popes who helped the “Church” ward off the dangers of the century.

  Again he spoke of the suffering of the “Church” of Rome!  But what is the terrible truth?  This: that both world wars were to a very large extent instigated by the popes of Rome; and that Nazism and Communism were both daughters of Rome, created by her and for her![63]  But this history is virtually unknown to people today.  How well the facts have been covered up, and how soon the truth, once known to many, has been forgotten!

  As for the popes “warding off” these dangers, this is laughable.  Pius XII, for example, was extremely pro-Nazi, and popes John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II were extremely pro-Communist.[64]  They did nothing to “ward off” these evils, but everything they could to encourage them and promote them!

  Ratzinger said that the central point of the message of the “third secret” was “that faith and prayer are forces which can influence history and that in the end prayer is more powerful than bullets and faith more powerful than armies.”  History reveals, however, that Rome has certainly never lived by this sentiment! – bullets and armies (and other weapons) have always been her preferred method of “converting” the nations!

  In support of Ratzinger’s 2000 interpretation, there was (so we are told) Lucia’s statement, as well as the historical events of the twentieth century, which to many people gave the appearance of a great struggle between Roman Catholicism and Communism.  But there were real problems with his interpretation, and many Roman Catholics were far from satisfied with this “official revelation” of the “third secret”.  For one thing, Lucia may not actually have still been alive to truly say this was the correct interpretation, or if she was, she may not actually have said what they claimed she said: it would have been a very easy thing for the Vatican to fake.  After all, we only have its own word for it that Lucia really did say these things, and Vatican officials would never lie to us – would they? (only the naive and the ignorant would believe that!).

  For another thing, despite Ratzinger claiming the death of the pope in the “vision” was symbolic, we again only have his interpretation of it this way.  Many Papists just could not see the connection between the death of the “bishop dressed in white” and the attempted assassination of John Paul II.  Not only did the pope not actually die, but no one else died either; only one non-soldier fired at him, not many soldiers; John Paul II was riding in the popemobile when he was shot, not toiling up a mountain; there was no big mountain, no kneeling at the cross, and no half-ruined city.

  For yet another thing, some writers, while not excluding the attack on John Paul II in 1981 from the context of persecution of the “Church”, nonetheless prefer to see the figure of “a bishop dressed in white” as a symbol of several popes rather than just one in particular.  This even fits in with Ratzinger’s view as well.[65]

  Furthermore, when the same Joseph Ratzinger, the cardinal who released the “secret” in 2000 and gave his own interpretation above, spoke of this “secret” some years earlier in 1984, he said at that time that the “third secret” involved “dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian and therefore of the world”, and that it also marked the beginning of the end times.  The two accounts of the same “secret” are quite different!  Indeed, Ratzinger’s 2000 interpretation did not even fit with that of Vatican scholars who had studied the Fatima “prophecy”, and stated that it concerned a global crisis of faith emanating from within the hierarchy of Rome itself.[66]

  Then, in May 2016, just a year before the 100th anniversary celebrations of Fatima, the “third secret” again made headlines, because, in an interview, a friend of Pope Benedict XVI, Romish theologian Ingo Dollinger, stated that in 2000 Benedict (who was Romish cardinal Ratzinger back then) had not fully published the “third secret”.  This caused Benedict to deny this strongly, claiming he never spoke with Dollinger about Fatima, and that Dollinger’s statements were “pure inventions, absolutely untrue.”  He stated: “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete.”[67]

One thought on “The Lying “Lady” of Fatima”

Comments are closed.