Of all the Apparitions and purported Apparitions of Salvation History, those concerning Fatima are the most detailed. The accounts in St Sr Lucia's memoirs are simple, elegant, childlike, and direct, just as the accounts of the life and mission of Our Lord Jesus Christ as compiled by the Four Evangelists and written in the Gospels. As in the Gospels, very little is written that a poor child would not instantly comprehend, with just a little instruction and clarification from a parent.
St Sr Lucia was a very truthful person, and persevering in her account, despite the hatred of her mother, her parish priest, the Tinsmith of Ouram, and, in all probability, higher church authorities. During the course of the most famous apparitions from May to October 1917, she was questioned repeatedly by hostile clerics, sometimes to the point of exhaustion, perhaps hoping she might say something contradictory that might discredit the Apparitions.
As has been stated before, the church authorities, especially in the person of the Cardinal Primate of Lisboa, António Mendes Belo, who gave orders to his priests that they could not so much as mention the Apparitions at Fatima, despite the obvious manifestations of the Supernatural. While many have defended and excused his behavior as exercises of prudence and discretion, further research makes clear that, for whatever reason, he was hostile to both the message and the visionaries. William Thomas Walse, in his book on Fatima, would give an account of how the primate somehow found humor in the death and exposition of the body of St Jacinta, when acquaintances made him aware of events at a Holy Name Conference.
Church Authorities, of course, were conspicuous by their absence at Fatima during the Miracle of the Sun on October 13th 1917. They had no excuse, since Our Lady had told St Sr Lucia on July 13th, two months previously, that in October she would work a miracle "so that all might believe".
The Vatican also had nothing to say in the days following the miracle, even though accounts of it were published in all the major newspapers of the world. The New York Times article about the Miracle of the Sun was published on October 17, 1917. Three Portuguese newspapers also reported the miracle: O Dia (The Day), on October 15th, O Século (The Century), on October 16th, and O Ordem (The Order), on October 17th. Given that an Italian newspaper, Il Corriere della Sera (The Evening Courier), a Milan-based newspaper, published an account of the Miracle of the Sun on October 24, 1917, Pope Benedict XV most certainly knew about the events by the end of that epochal month of October. Yet, the silence of the Vatican was telling, and deafening.
Our Lady came to Fatima so that Our Lord, at His Second Coming, will accuse the church, and men, that they had no excuse for their unbelief, and apostasy, and sins. Especially to the Church Leaders will he say that they had no excuse. All He required of them was a Simple Consecration of Russia. He did not even require that they divulge their Satanism and their heinous crimes. He would have taken care of everything. Meanwhile, by their attempts to silence and distort the message of Fatima, these bishops and popes, starting with Pius XI, advertise their utter contempt for the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Immaculate Heart of Mary.
Pius XII said years later that the time for doubting Our Lady of Fatima had passed. Well, this Wolf holds there was NEVER a time to doubt Our Lady of Fatima, and that perceptive and prayerful persons would have been deeply moved upon hearing of the Apparitions, would have wanted to learn more, and would have increased their prayers and penances.
As for the rest of men, what Our Lord said concerning Jerusalem can be said of them: "Thou hast not known the time of thy visitation."
Hi Wolf, I very much enjoyed your conversation with Dr. Haugen, I appreciated your sincerity and didn't misinterpret your self-evidently knowledge and truth based opinions as personal hubris since I have independent verification of many points. Your honest style mostly carries one over pieces of information that may be new and concerning. Having said that I would like to hear a conversation that presents evidence, for example, of your assertions about +Williamson. A fair criticism to make of you (I believe) is that anonymous revelations such as these may at least appear to carry the risk of being calumnious (I assume that you have good faith reasons for believing they are not), but in what way are they not amounting to detraction, unless these facts (my assumption, assuming your good faith, but I've not seen other sources so cannot be certain) are actually quite widely known, sufficient at least that disclosure to a wider audience is not detraction.
You won't be surprised to hear that you divided opinion, men tend to strongly approve as do particularly robust members of the fair sex who no longer entertain nice illusions in any significant degree. Doug seemed nervous in the first half but got in his stride later. I expect he feared you might be a loose cannon. He need not have feared, I know from having followed you for a while and reading all your content that you have a masterful command of the metanarrative. In some posts you stamp on our toes mercilessly but in others reveal glimpses of being conciliatory to the genuinely ignorant. There is a challenge for us, I think I've subscribed and later unsubscribed at least twice because of some particularly forthright post with which I felt exasperated. But I came back seeing another post of exceptional quality.
My point being that a two hour conversation is a much more holistic opportunity for your great strengths to greatly outweigh any weaknesses. Doug has the humility and sincere desire for truth to give you your head and there is strong support from his audience for more. I'd like to see you working cooperatively together which will take work as, like me, you are choleric in temperament (I think), but he is not. Choleric tempered by age and experience, he does appreciate in my experience of him.
I'd love to hear conversations going in depth into the historic development of the ecclesia-simulacra. I believe a hatchet job on Catholic influencers is unnecessary and could sound off. We all know their faults. Let's have a few deep dives, maybe starting from the Scholastic summit?
Thanks again and God bless you!