CHAPTER III

VATICAN COUNCIL II
AND THE FATIMA REVELATIONS

ATICAN Council II could have been the providential occasion to perform the collegial consecration of Russia. «Divine Providence», Father Antonio Maria Martins rightly remarks, «offered the Pope an excellent opportunity, in the meeting of the Council, to carry out the requested consecration along with all the bishops assembled in Rome.¹»
 

THE PETITIONS OF THE COUNCIL FATHERS FOR A CONSECRATION TO THE IMMACULATE HEART OF MARY.

At the Council, recounts John Haffert, «I was in constant communication with Msgr. Venancio. Poor Msgr. Venancio! How he suffered! He was confined to bed during almost the whole time of the Council… Some of us circulated petitions in favour of the collegial consecration among the bishops.²»

The secretary of the Belgian section of the Blue Army, Miss Emma Folon, sent each of the 2,500 Council Fathers, through the Vatican post, the text of a message to the Holy Father asking him to carry out the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary³.

On February 3, 1964, two months after the Council’s second session had closed, Dom Geraldo de Proença Sigaud S.V.D., Archbishop of Diamantina in Brazil, personally handed Pope Paul VI a petition signed by five hundred and ten bishops from seventy-eight nations. Let us quote a few lines from it:

«Responding to the desires of the Most Blessed Virgin who, at Her apparitions in Fatima, requested that the Sovereign Pontiff, in union with all the Catholic bishops, make the consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary with a special mention of Russia⁴. Uniting my voice to the desire of a great number of prelates animated by the firm hope of obtaining peace for our troubled times, of removing the profound causes of apostasy, of obtaining the conversion of those who have gone over to communism, of obtaining the intercession of Her who, on Her own, has destroyed all heresies throughout the world, of restoring the liberty of the Church in nations where she is persecuted, and of promoting the abundant fruits of a renewal of Christian life among the faithful. I humbly beg Your Holiness to consecrate the entire world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and, in a special and explicit manner, Russia and the other nations which are dominated by sectarian communism; and to order that on the same day and at the same time as the Sovereign Pontiff, all the Catholic bishops of the world should make the same consecration of the world and of these nations.⁵»

During the Council’s third session, in the autumn of the year 1964, Msgr. de Proença Sigaud collected 250 new episcopal signatures for this petition⁶.

In the Council chamber, at the discussion on the chapter dealing with the Virgin Mary, on September 16, 1964, Cardinal Wyszynski presented the memorandum he had addressed to Paul VI in the name of seventy Polish bishops. Contained within it were various requests including the following: that there be carried out by the Holy Father and all the Catholic bishops a consecration of the Church and of the world to the Blessed Virgin Mary, and that there be renewed in the conciliar assembly, in a collegial and universal manner, that is to say, with all the bishops of the whole world, the consecration of the human race to the Immaculate Heart of Mary performed by Pius XII on October 31, 1942⁷.

Shortly afterwards, Msgr. Mingo, Bishop of Monreale in Sicily, ended his intervention by asking for «the renewal, at the close of Vatican II, of the consecration of the Church, the world and particularly Russia to the Immaculate Heart of the Blessed Virgin Mary. All of Christ’s faithful are waiting for us to perform this act and certainly it would be agreeable to the Virgin Mother of God, Mediatrix of all graces.⁸»

The progressivist press⁹ expressed surprise that Msgr. Mingo should have explicitly mentioned Russia, almost as if he had infringed an embargo!

The next day, September 17, Msgr. Rendeiro, Bishop of Faro, a small coastal town in Portugal, backed Cardinal Wyszynski’s second request, in the name of the whole Portuguese episcopate:

«May I be permitted», he said, «to express the wish of the bishops of my country, Portugal, which, like a number of other countries, glories in the title of Holy Mary. It was a great joy to all of us that consecration of the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, accomplished in 1942 by His Holiness Pius XII and yesterday recalled by His Eminence Cardinal Wyszynski. With all our heart we desire to see this consecration renewed by Our Holy Father the Pope, all of us accompanying him. Aware that this wish has already been presented to the Holy Father by numerous bishops from Brazil and elsewhere, we were overjoyed yesterday to hear it formulated in these precincts by His Eminence Cardinal Wyszynski; that is why we express it again with great confidence.¹⁰»

Certain devotees of Fatima, such as the Abbé Richard, have claimed that the Pope responded to these requests through his act of November 21, 1964.

At that time Paul VI was anxious to put the brakes on the headlong march of the partisans of the Church’s aggiornamento, wanting to reassure those Fathers who were disturbed to see the progressivist minority propagating and imposing on the Council the most insane doctrines. It was in this context that, on November 21, 1964, in his closing speech for the session, Paul VI proclaimed Mary “Mother of the Church”, and then recalled the act by which Pius XII had consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary on October 31, 1942. Commenting on this speech, the Abbé René Laurentin emphasised its very limited scope. Pope Paul VI was extremely reserved in comparison to Pius XII. «Paul VI does not formally renew, but recalls the consecration made by his predecessor: he uses the verb commemorate (commemorari). Paul VI entrusts the human race to the protection of the Virgin: he uses the word entrust (committimus), but he does not repeat the word consecrate (consagramos) used by Pius XII.¹¹» We will soon discover, as we study the debates of the Council’s third session, why the Abbé Laurentin analysed this speech with such perspicacity¹².

Father Alonso remarked that, on November 21, 1964, «he had omitted something essential» for the accomplishment of the collegial consecration of Russia: specifically «the consecration of Russia»¹³!

During Vatican Council II, neither John XXIII nor Paul VI sought to respond to Our Lady’s requests because the objectives they had set it were not in keeping with the message of Fatima.
 

FROM OCTOBER 11, 1962, TWO CONTRADICTORY SPIRITS.

To demonstrate that the spirit of the conciliar aggiornamento and that of the Fatima revelations were two contradictory spirits, we must begin by recalling the orientations that Pope John XXIII gave his Council.

We deliberately say his Council because John XXIII never revealed which prelates had suggested to him that he call an Ecumenical Council. He even ventured to write in his Journal of a Soul that no one had ever addressed this request to him¹⁴. He wanted his decision to call such an assembly to look like a personal idea, a heavenly inspiration, an illumination of the Holy Spirit.

However, he gave out so many different and indeed contradictory versions of this “inspiration” that Peter Hebblethwaite, his biographer, and indeed hagiographer! was led to explain: «One can only conclude that [Pope] John’s memory faltered and that his unconscious editing of his reminiscences is designed to emphasise, yet again, that the idea of the Council was an “inspiration” in the sense defined above¹⁵»…

So what did happen then? This:

During the conclave, on the night of October 27, 1958, Cardinals Ottaviani and Ruffini, both very conscious of the threats weighing on the Church and the faith, paid a visit to the cell of Cardinal Roncalli, whose election to the throne of Peter now seemed almost certain. They suggested to him that he incorporate in the programme of his pontificate the calling of an Ecumenical Council¹⁶. Six days later, on November 2, Cardinal Ruffini spoke again on this matter to John XXIII: «By November 2», Hebblethwaite states, «we have the first documented mention of the idea [of a Council]: in a memo after an audience with Cardinal Ruffini, [Pope] John noted that they had discussed the possibility of calling a Council.¹⁷»

So the calling of a Council was requested of him by traditionalist cardinals as a remedy to the invading apostasy.

But the “illuminism” of which John XXIII made such great show allowed him to regard their suggestions as his own, then to distance himself from their reactionary preoccupations, and to fix for the ecumenical assembly strange and novel aims, namely that of effecting an aggiornamento of the Church in order to adapt it to the modern world.

In his analysis of the Opening Speech to Vatican II¹⁸, given on October 11, 1962, the Abbé de Nantes discerned and denounced «eight heresies»¹⁹. We will mention only the third, that is «the authoritarian condemnation of the prophets of gloom».

In making this categorical condemnation, the Pope indirectly discredited the prophecies of the Virgin of Fatima and took a position wholly antithetical to the visions of the Third Secret:

«In order that the holy joy which fills Our hearts at this solemn hour may be more complete, may We be permitted to say before this great assembly that this Ecumenical Council is opening in particularly favourable circumstances.

«It often happens that, in the daily exercise of Our apostolic ministry, Our ears are offended by what is said by certain people who, although burning with religious zeal [an obligatory concession], lack sound judgement, discretion and balance in their way of seeing things. In the situation of society today, they see nothing but ruin and calamity [a probable reminiscence of the Third Secret: «Before reaching there, the Holy Father crossed a large city half in ruins»]; they are in the habit of saying that our era is far worse than past centuries; they behave as though history, which is the teacher of life, had nothing to teach them and as though at the time of former Councils everything was perfect in regard to Christian doctrine, morals and the proper liberty of the Church.»

The Abbé de Nantes comments: «This is calumny pure and simple. The prophets of gloom draw all their experience and wisdom from the lessons of the past, whereas the prophets of joy build their utopias, which the past had never even dreabeen invented in the past, in a future adapted to the pleasure of their insane folly. Today, the prophets of joy of the Sixties – and they were legion at the time – have fallen into oblivion. Forty years later, we have war, famine, the “plague” of AIDS and the persecutions against the Church announced by the prophets of gloom.»

«We feel we must state Our complete disagreement», continued John XXIII, «with these prophets of gloom, who are always forecasting disaster, as though the end of the world were at hand.»

«A multitude of canonised saints and miracle workers», remarks the Abbé de Nantes, «have acted exactly in this manner, imitating Saint Paul, and inspiring by this very announcement immense movements of conversion for the salvation of souls. What is more, they had as their patron in this office Our Lord Jesus Christ, Himself in the line of Saint John the Baptist, His Precursor, a prophet of woe… of woes which took place at their allotted time, whilst others still await their hour. Which means that the odds are always stacked in favour of the prophets of gloom… right up to the end. Among the maledictions pronounced by Jesus, one single verdict is sufficient to exclude John XXIII from the cohort of the blessed: “Alas for you when the world speaks well of you! This was the way their fathers treated the false prophets.” (Lk 6:26)

«From the time of Jeremiah to that Our Lady of Fatima, the only valid prophecies of happiness are those which announce a reward after blessed trials (Jr 30:31), a deliverance after a harsh exile (Is 40-55), and a deluge of graces obtained through the Immaculate Heart of Mary on behalf of a people docile to Her requests.²⁰»

Further on in his speech, John XXIII alluded to the persecutions suffered by «a large number of bishops». More than eighty bishops were in fact known to be in prison in the countries of the Warsaw Pact, North Vietnam, China and North Korea. But the Pope in no way indicated the origin of these persecutions. He said not a word about communism nor about the danger it constituted for the Church and Christendom. John XXIII was already bound by the secret undertakings he had given to the Moscow Patriarchate.
 

VATICAN II’S SILENCE ABOUT COMMUNISM.
JOHN XXIII’S SECRET UNDERTAKINGS.

Pope John XXIII’s efforts to ensure Russian Orthodox observers took part in the Council initially ran up against the open hostility of the official Russian Orthodox Church, enslaved to the KGB, which issued a Non possumus by way of reply to the advances made by Cardinal Bea, President of the Secretariat for Unity. Such was in fact the title of an article published, in May 1961, in the journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, and one of its sentences sums up the whole debate: «In the present proposals from Catholic officials regarding Christian unity, it is right to see nothing other than an attempt to extend Rome’s power over the Orthodox Church.²¹» Thus the Russian Orthodox displayed the same inflexibility as they had at the time of Vatican Council I: in 1869, they had rejected the call of Pope Pius IX, who had not only invited the Catholic bishops to the Council but also «all the bishops of the Oriental Rite who were not in communion with the Apostolic See».

However, the Russians soon learned that John XXIII was disposed to make some astonishing concessions to ensure the presence of their Church’s representatives in the conciliar aula.

After the death of Cardinal Tardini and the Pope’s eightieth birthday, in December 1961, the Moscow Patriarchate publicly stated on what conditions Russian observers would attend the Council:

«Provided that the Vatican programme contains no doctrinal points upon which the Orthodox Church cannot agree, for example, the dogma of papal primacy, and provided also that there are no hostile declarations against the country we love, I believe that, for our part, there will no difficulty in principle in sending observers to Rome.²²»

Msgr. Georges Roche, who enjoyed the confidence of Cardinal Tisserant, certifies that «the decision to invite the Russian Orthodox observers to Vatican Council II had been taken personally by H. H. Pope John XXIII with the evident encouragement of Cardinal Montini, who had been the Patriarch of Venice’s adviser when he himself was the Archbishop of Milan. Cardinal Tisserant received firm, irrevocable instructions from the Pope himself, and the Cardinal had always been a man one could trust. He believed in authority, he obeyed it, even when he was convinced that there had been a diplomatic or political error.²³»

Historians generally pass over in silence or deny the existence of the agreement between Rome and Moscow that was negotiated during the summer of 1962. For example, Sergio Trasatti writes: «There was a rumour that some kind of pact had been concluded between John XXIII and the Soviets: send your representatives, and the Council will avoid condemning communism. Nothing could be more fanciful.²⁴»

A brief presentation of the history of the secret negotiations that resulted in this agreement is therefore indispensable. The Moscow Patriarchate’s envoy, Msgr. Nikodim, met Msgr. Willebrands in Paris and then Cardinal Tisserant in Metz on August 18, 1962. According to Msgr. J.-P. Schmitt, the Bishop of Metz, «after this conversation, Msgr. Nikodim agreed that someone should go to Moscow to convey an invitation, provided that a pledge were given as to the non-political attitude of the Council»²⁵. Such were the demands of the Moscow Patriarchate, totally devoted to the Kremlin. If Vatican Council II “abstained” from discussing communism and Russia, then the Russian Orthodox would come and follow its workings as observers. And Pope John XXIII secretly subscribed to such an undertaking.

«Already the hand had been laid to the wheel», writes our Father Superior, «and, it must be said, in an uncompensated act of surrender: on a point of capital importance, the Church would relinquish her key role, her doctrinal magisterium, her rights and duties, and would not condemn communism. In exchange for which silence she would let herself be infiltrated by the agents of the most fearsome persecutor and despot in history.²⁶»

There exist indisputable proofs of this verbal agreement hatched between the Vatican and the Kremlin in August 1962. The communist press alluded to it almost immediately. In January 1963, in France nouvelle, the weekly newspaper of the French Communist Party, Jean-Claude Poulain wrote: «The Church can no longer be satisfied with a crude anticommunism. She has even given an undertaking, on the occasion of her dialogue with the Russian Orthodox Church, that in the Council there will be no direct attack on the communist regime.²⁷»

This hideous deal concluded between Rome and Moscow explains the scheming, the deceit, the backstabbing perpetrated by the highest authorities in the Church to prevent the Council from condemning communism.

«The greatest Council of all time (supposedly)», writes the Abbé de Nantes, «would therefore remain deaf and blind to the greatest phenomenon of inhumanity of all time: the global expansion of bolshevism. Thus did it secretly lend it its decisive aid.²⁸»
 

THE VAIN PETITIONS OF THE COUNCIL FATHERS.

To respond to the vota of the more than three hundred bishops who had explicitly requested it, the preparatory commissions of Vatican II had seen to it that communism would be censured and condemned in two of the Council’s constitutions. But neither of these schemas was included in the agenda for the first session of Vatican II.

Shortly after this session had opened, on October 20, 1962, during the debate over the “Message to the World”, the third speaker, Cardinal Ferretto, who was warmly applauded, and three other prelates expressed surprise that this first declaration of the Council’s should totally ignore those being persecuted on the other side of the iron curtain. All at once, Cardinal Liénart, who was presiding, interrupted the session and issued this warning: «May I ask speakers not to repeat what has already been said.²⁹» He wanted to put a stop to these demands, which could only offend the two Russian observers.

A Ukrainian bishop had the courage to defy the Cardinal’s veto and asked, yet again, that there be added «a clear, unequivocal statement in support of the Church of silence». He proposed an amendment formula: «At this solemn hour of the Council, we unite ourselves heart and soul with the whole Church of silence, where bishops and priests offer Christ our Saviour their daily sacrifice on behalf of the Church and the salvation of the world. We beseech Christ Our Lord that He shorten the time of their tribulation.³⁰»

Cardinal Liénart refused to introduce this amendment.

As a sign of protest, the fifteen Ukrainian bishops present at the Council – exiled bishops or those from dioceses set up in Europe or America for Ukrainian exiles – conspicuously remained seated when the Fathers stood up to signify their acceptance of the “Message to the World”.

One month later, in mid-November 1962, these Ukrainian bishops prepared a declaration to protest against the presence at the Council of the two delegates from the Moscow Patriarchate, a presence which, they said, «had given rise, among the clergy and faithful entrusted to their care, to a feeling of unease, discontent and discouragement. For some sections of public opinion, it has been apparent that the coming to Rome of the Orthodox observers was greeted with a great fanfare, whereas the absence of Metropolitan Slipyj and his imprisonment were passed over in silence. Msgr. Slipyj is the sole survivor of the eleven members of the Ukrainian episcopate who were imprisoned by the communists and deported to Siberia.

«The Moscow Patriarchate has assumed ecclesiastical jurisdiction over 4,500,000 Ukrainian Catholics against all law, divine, ecclesiastical or human, and in open collaboration with the atheistic civil power, because that was the only way of suppressing and eliminating the Ukrainian Catholic Church.³¹»

Even before they had officially published their protest, the Ukrainian bishops found themselves publicly repudiated by Msgr. Willebrands, Secretary of the Secretariat for Christian Unity. «This gesture by Msgr. Willebrands», remarks Sergio Trasatti, «was greatly appreciated by the Russian Patriarchate, for, as duly noted in Moscow, it demonstrated the loyalty (sic) of the Holy See.³²»

However, many Council Fathers could not resign themselves to the Council’s silence over Russia’s errors and the communist persecutions. On December 3, 1963, the day before the second session ended, Msgr. de Proença Sigaud managed to hand the Cardinal Secretary of State petitions addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff and been signed by more than two hundred Council Fathers belonging to forty-six countries, calling for a special schema to be prepared in which «the Catholic social doctrine would be set forth with great clarity, and the errors of marxism, socialism and communism would be refuted on philosophical, sociological and economic grounds»³³. A request formulated in vain: communism was not even mentioned in the draft constitution on “The Church in the Modern World” that was submitted to the Fathers during the third session, in the autumn of 64. As a result, when its paragraphs on atheism came up for discussion, Msgr. Yu Pin, Rector of the Catholic University of Formosa, speaking in the name of seventy bishops, asked that a new chapter or at least a solemn declaration be added on communism. The Chinese bishop put forward some compelling reasons, including the following:

«Communism is a militant atheism and a crude materialism. In a word, it is a compilation of all heresies, and it must be treated as such, if the truth is to be defended.» The Council «must dispel the confusion created by the doctrine of peaceful co-existence, by the policy of the outstretched hand, and by Catholic communism, as it is called, all of which are stratagems calculated to assist communism and to create obscurity, doubt, or at least hesitation in the minds of Christians. In this matter the utmost clarity is now required.³⁴»

But the Council’s pastoral “finalité” was quite different. Two weeks later, on November 5, 1964, had not Cardinal Alfrink declared in the aula: «Our pastoral solicitude looks for the good seed even in the communist world.³⁵»

The revised draft constitution on “The Church in the Modern World”, presented at the start of the fourth session, still did not contain the slightest mention of communism. So, on October 9, 1965, Msgr. de Proença Sigaud and Msgr. Marcel Lefebvre presented to the General Secretariat of the Council a petition from 334 Fathers³⁶ asking that communism be condemned. The text of the petition explained:

«In every age, Councils must unmask and banish errors that spread in an underhand manner, such as they exist in reality and not in abstracto. Now, today, the most dangerous and the most virulent form in which atheism is embodied and operates is that of communism. That is why the Second Vatican Council must talk of communism and explicitly refer to it by name, as did Pius XI in the encyclical Divini Redemptoris.

«Were the Council not to talk of communism, its silence would be interpreted by the faithful, unjustly but inevitably, as a tacit abrogation of everything that recent Popes have said or written against communism, including the reiterated condemnations of the Holy Office. The psychological harm and also the discredit to the Church’s magisterium that would result from this would be immensely grave. Moreover, people might easily accuse the Church of opportunism, of false witness, and of being more concerned about Jews than about Christians suffering persecution.

«Communism ardently desires and expects this silence from the Council, and that is highly significant. There can be no doubt that communist propaganda will use every opportunity to interpret this silence of the Council in its favour. From this will result a great confusion of ideas among the faithful.³⁷»

This petition was not passed on to the members of the joint commission responsible for drawing up the official report on the schema under discussion. It was put to one side by Msgr. Glorieux³⁸ who could not have committed such a felony, such an abuse of power, unless covered by the highest authorities in the Church³⁹. «Everyone knew of the existence of this petition», Father Rouquette relates. «The members of the commission for Schema XIII were astonished that it had not been passed to them and surmised that it had been blocked at the highest level… I have good reason to believe that Paul VI, questioned by one of the members responsible for Schema XIII, advised against a new condemnation of communism along the lines demanded by the petition.⁴⁰»

According to Msgr. Haubtmann, Msgr. Garrone «was granted special powers to ensure that this schema to which Paul VI attached such great importance for the aggiornamento of the Church was finalised on time, despite the difficult circumstances». In the Council aula, on November 15, 1965, this French prelate declared that «this manner of proceeding [by rejecting the request for an express and formal condemnation of communism] appeared to the Commission to be in perfect conformity, on one hand with the pastoral “finalité” of the Council, and on the other with the express wishes of Popes John XXIII and Paul VI»⁴¹.

So Vatican II neither condemned nor even named atheistic communism. Analytical tables of its Acts contain none of the following words: communism, marxism, socialism. Commenting on the paragraphs in Gaudium et Spes which deal with atheism (nos. 19-21), the Abbé de Nantes remarks that «Vatican II focuses all its energy on trying to excuse, understand, esteem, respect and love atheists, and, when necessary, to hold Christians responsible for the atheism of others»⁴².

The Council neglected the martyrs, both their heroic witness as well as the fruits of their sacrifice, that is to say, the graces they win for «souls who are making their way to God», as seen in the vision of the Third Secret. However, several bishops whose flock had suffered and continued to suffer diabolical persecutions under the communist yoke, gave voice to some passionate appeals in the Council aula. Listen for instance to the intervention of Msgr. Andrea Sapelak, a Ukrainian bishop, at the general congregation of October 31, 1963:

«In the text of the schema on the Church, not a single word is said of the extraordinary but constant vocation in Christ’s Church to the heroic sanctity that bore the Church countless martyrs and confessors of the faith, as evidenced in the “Martyrology”.

«Nothing in the schema makes reference to this supreme act of love for God and neighbour, comparable to Christ’s confession before men as well as to the sacrifice of His life. Now in our times, countless numbers of Christ’s faithful have been called to this sublime vocation, and still are continually […]. Persecutions constitute an exceptional but permanent aspect of the Church’s life, being a little like the stigmata of Christ in His Mystical Body. Our Lord warned us of this: “If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you too.” (Jn 15.20)

«What a comfort it would be for all those who suffer in the name of Christ and the Church, in the various nations, if the sacrosanct Vatican II Council were expressly to declare that, by virtue of their anxieties, harassment, torments, oppressions and imprisonments, they are preceding all others on the path of holiness, because they are the most closely following Our Divine Saviour and Master.

«On several occasions already, and with good reason, it has been said in this assembly that the poor have a special place in Christ’s Church. But our brothers, who renew Christ’s passion in their flesh and aid the whole Mystical Body by their sufferings, deserve a very special place in the Church. What is more, their very life is the source of a great apostolate for all the faithful, for they give everyone an eminent example by extolling the highest stage of love of God.

«It has also been said, and on several occasions, that the Council intended to open a dialogue with the world of today. But we must be careful not to forget the immense multitude of our brothers who are suffering in the name of Christ and of the Church.

«In conclusion, I make so bold as to propose that, in Chapter IV on the vocation to holiness in the Church, mention is also made, alongside the manifold but ordinary practices of holiness, of this extraordinary vocation to holiness, namely the confession of faith and martyrdom, under a special heading which would celebrate its sublime character as a very particular and mysterious gift made by God to each person and to every community of the faithful. I have spoken.⁴³»

Msgr. Sapelak’s proposal was not accepted. The constitution Lumen Gentium did not discuss martyrdom under a special heading, nor did it extol the sacrifice of this blessed company as the greatest witness to the faith that a Christian can offer his Father in Heaven.

The constitution Gaudium et Spes, on the Church in the Modern World, spoke of persecutions with a surprising levity and optimism. «The Church recognises that she has drawn great benefits and continues to do so from the very opposition of her enemies and persecutors.» (no. 44) What are these benefits? No one will ever find out by reading this constitution tainted with naturalism.

If the Council neglected and ignored the harsh tribulations of the persecuted, it was in order to leave the way open to the policy inaugurated by John XXIII, one of rapprochement and cooperation with the communist States. The Council recommended dialogue with «those who oppose the Church and persecute her in different ways». This in order to «cooperate, without violence or hidden agenda, in building up the world in a spirit of genuine peace»⁴⁴.
 

THE NOVELTIES OF VATICAN II CONTRADICTED BY THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA.

All the grand orientations of Vatican II were in contradiction with the message of Our Lady of Fatima. Each element of the Virgin’s request concerning the act of reparation and Russia’s consecration is radically opposed by one or other of the doctrinal novelties of Vatican II.

The Council could not extol “the spiritual values present in every religion and even in atheism” and at the same time stage a solemn and public act of reparation for the acts of impiety committed in Russia by the Bolsheviks.

Our Lady had asked the Pope to use his sovereign authority to ensure that the bishops themselves performed this act: «Let the Holy Father deign to make and order all the Catholic bishops likewise to make…» Now at the Council, the progressivist Fathers violently contested the papal authority. They fought victoriously to impose “collegiality”: over and against the absolute and personal authority of the Pope, the supreme and immediate head of every bishop, they exalted the power of the episcopal college, «possessing supreme and full authority over the universal Church»⁴⁵.

Furthermore, Congarian ecumenism, imposed at Vatican II by the progressivist minority, led the Council to ridicule the prerogatives of the Immaculate Mediatrix. It is true, the dogma of Mary Mediatrix of all graces is not explicitly formulated in the revelations of Fatima, the term “mediation” not being found there. However, the message of Fatima necessarily implies it. Does it not teach us that God wishes to establish in the world devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary? And the divine plan is to achieve this by making known to the whole world His Most Holy Mother’s universal mediation of grace and mercy through the miracle of Russia’s conversion, which will only be obtained from the Divine Omnipotence when that nation has been consecrated to Her Immaculate Heart.
 

THE OUTRAGES AGAINST THE IMMACULATE MEDIATRIX.

The teaching of Vatican II on the Virgin Mary is a great step backwards from that of all the modern popes, from Pius IX to Pius XII. We say to Pius XII and not to John XXIII, for the latter was very anxious «to refocus and purify traditional Italian piety»⁴⁶. This Pope, explains Laurentin, «was keen to promote an interior form of renewal, and seemed to fear that the exterior lustre and formalism of certain ceremonies of consecration would make people forget rather than further this renewal»⁴⁷.

On October 24, 1960, John XXIII warned the clergy of Rome against «an eagerness to cultivate certain practices or particular devotions which are perhaps excessive in their cultus of the Madonna – the dear Mother of Jesus and our Mother, who will not take offence at Our words – or of certain men and women saints, devotions which, on occasion, give a poor idea of the piety of our good people. Know how to understand Us. It is the duty of the priest to be on guard and also to put the people on guard. Certain pious practices merely satisfy the feelings, but are not enough to fulfil religious obligations, and even less do they fully correspond to the first three commandments of the Decalogue, grave and imperious.⁴⁸»

The Abbé Laurentin remarks that «John XXIII several times used the title “Mother of the Church”, in this following Leo XIII, but never used those of Coredemptrix and Mediatrix»⁴⁹.

During the preparation of the Council, the universal Mediation of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the dogmatic definition of which had been expressly desired by three hundred bishops⁵⁰, possessed a fierce adversary in Cardinal Montini. On June 20, 1962, when the draft schema on the Virgin Mary elaborated by the Theological Commission was debated by the Central Commission, this prelate made the following declaration: «The proposal for a new title, especially that of Mediatrix, to be given to Mary Most Holy, would appear inopportune and even detestable (damnosa).» And he went on to make his own the old protestant refrain a hundred times refuted: «The term Mediator must be attributed uniquely and exclusively to none but Christ alone, as the Apostle says: Unus est Mediator.⁵¹» The future Pope Paul VI continued with this patent countertruth: «The extension of this title does not appear to favour true piety […]. It is much better to speak of the universal spiritual maternity of Mary Most Holy, of her queenship and of her marvellous and truly benign intercession, but not of her mediation (non vero de mediatione).⁵²»

In 1966, Laurentin was able to highlight the fact that Paul VI’s teaching contained «the same abstention [as in John XXIII’s teaching] regarding the same titles [that is to say, the titles of Coredemptrix and Mediatrix]»⁵³.

Before the second session of the Council, Cardinal Koenig’s theologian, Father Karl Rahner, studied and denigrated the schema on the Virgin Mary that had been elaborated by the preparatory theological commission. Wiltgen acquaints us with his corrosive criticism:

«Were the text to be accepted as it stood, Father Rahner contended, “unimaginable harm would result from an ecumenical point of view”. It could not be too strongly stressed, he said, “that all the success achieved in the field of ecumenism through the Council and in connection with the Council will be rendered worthless by the retention of the schema as it stands”. It should therefore be urged “with all possible insistence” that this schema be made either a chapter or an epilogue of the schema on the Church. “This would be the easiest way to delete from the schema statements which, theologically, are not sufficiently developed and which could only do incalculable harm from an ecumenical point of view. It would also prevent bitter discussion.”

«What he attacked especially was the schema’s teaching on the mediation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the title “Mediatrix of all graces”, which it attributed to the Blessed Virgin… If the word “mediation” were to be used at all, it must be most clearly defined.»

Father Karl Rahner presented his comments at the Fulda Conference, which adopted them and submitted them to the General Secretariat of the Council: «By far the greater part of the Council Fathers of Austria, Germany, Switzerland and Scandinavia are not absolutely opposed to retaining the words “Mediatrix” and “mediation” in the schema. However, it seems desirable that the expression “Mediatrix of all graces” should not be used.»

«The proposal officially submitted by the Fulda Conference to the General Secretariat of the Council also quoted from Protestant writings. Bishop Dibelius, of the German Evangelical Church, was quoted as saying in 1962 that the Catholic Church’s teaching on Mary was one of the major impediments to union. Other German Protestant authorities, such as Hampe and Künneth, were quoted as saying that the Council Fathers in Rome should remember that they would be erecting a new wall of division by approving a schema on Mary. Therefore, these writers had concluded, the Council should either keep silence on the subject, or reprehend those guilty of excesses. More moderate Protestant writers, such as Professor Meinhold, were quoted as expressing the hope that, if the Council treated of the Blessed Virgin Mary at all, it would do so in the schema on the Church, since then “a new approach could be made to the doctrine on the Blessed Virgin”.⁵⁴»

But now the Virgin’s defenders rose up. The theories of the partisans of Marian aggiornamento were learnedly and severely criticised during the Council’s second session.

Msgr. Grotti, a Servite monk, a prelate from Acre e Purús in Brazil, wrote to the Fathers: «Does ecumenism consist in confessing or in hiding the truth? Ought the Council to explain Catholic doctrine, or the doctrine of our separated brethren? Hiding the truth hurts both us and those separated from us. It hurts us, because we appear as hypocrites. It hurts those who are separated from us because it makes them appear weak and capable of being offended by the truth.⁵⁵»

Let us point out that five Eastern-rite bishops (two bishops from Malabar in India and three Ukrainian bishops) asked the Council to vote against the amalgamation of the two separate schemas, and this in order to facilitate ecumenism with the schismatics of the East. They reminded the Fathers, in a letter they distributed to them at the entrance of Saint Peter’s Basilica, that «among the Orientals united to the Apostolic See, as well as those who are separated from it, the Blessed Virgin Mary is very greatly honoured»⁵⁶.

Father Antoine Wenger, an Assumptionist, regretted that the Council, in its debates on the Virgin Mary, neglected Oriental theology and tradition, an oversight hardly calculated to favour ecumenism with the Christians of the East:

«The Marian debate in the Council and the discussions to which it has given rise oblige me to repeat an observation I have made before. It concerns the ignorance of both Protestants and Catholics about the Marian theology of the East. Faced with such ignorance, it often happens that the Orientals themselves, unsure of their tradition from a scientific perspective, keep quiet as though they had nothing to say. I intensely regret, for example, that during the Marian debate no voice from the East made itself heard, even though these bishops were favourably regarded and were more likely to be listened to insofar as they appeared to rise above the general mêlée. Perhaps they thought that this quarrel was exclusively between the Latins and the Protestants. But was that not a further reason to speak out and make themselves heard by each of the two sides, and to show that the various aspects of Marian dogma are the heritage of the Church undivided?

«Only one Ukrainian bishop, the Apostolic Visitor for Latin America, Msgr. Sapelak, cited the tradition of the East in support of the Mediation. Yet he did so from a particularly Slav perspective, recalling the Feast of Pokrov, based on Saint Andrew-the-Fool’s vision of the Virgin taking the world under the protection of Her mantle.

«Faced with this situation, we have often regretted that we were unable to continue our research into Marian theology and that we did not publish the numerous unpublished Marian homilies of Byzantine orators which we have recovered from Athos, as well as from Rome, Athens and Moscow, or else discovered in great numbers in Paris. Although belonging to a tradition inherited from apocryphal writers, these orators wove a Marian theology that teaches the perfect exemption from sin of Mary, the Mother of God, Her integral virginity, Her assumption in body and soul after death, and Her perfect intercession before Her Son, owing to the maternal confidence She has in His presence.

«We do not know to what extent the Byzantines called Mary the Mother of the Church. It is obvious that certain authors or certain writings derive a particular satisfaction from calling Mary the Mother of the faithful and the Mother of pastors. Regarding Her mediation, at any rate, they are unanimous and constant in their affirmation.⁵⁷»

Father Wenger returned to this theme when commenting upon one of the interventions of Cardinal Ruffini, the Archbishop of Palermo, who so often distinguished himself by his learning and his steadfastness in the faith.

«Opening the debate once again, Cardinal Ruffini spoke with a youthful ardour despite his age – he is seventy-six –, evidently happy to chant the glories of Mary: “This title of Mediatrix”, he said, “is eminently acceptable, acceptissimus. To preserve the title of One Mediator which belongs to Christ, we could call Mary mediatrix ad Mediatorem, the mediatrix to the Mediator.”

«Without knowing it, Cardinal Ruffini was agreeing with a Byzantine orator, John the Geometer, who, more than any other, penetrated the mystery of Mary, a mystery which the Church of the East prefers to contemplate in silence rather than to express in words. For it is so great that it surpasses understanding. Mary, to use John the Geometer’s beautiful expression, is She whom words cannot convey, whom time cannot express, whom thought can never exhaust. Now John the Geometer, when considering Mary’s role in the historic redemption and Her permanent intercession following Her assumption into Heaven, does not hesitate to call Her mediatrix, the second mediatrix to the first Mediator.⁵⁸»

Thus, neither true devotion nor scholarship were on the side of the upholders of the Marian aggiornamento. This did not prevent them from winning a decisive victory during the Council’s second session: on October 29, 1963, the Fathers voted to combine the schema on the Church with that on the Virgin Mary.

The “minimalists” then waged a stubborn battle to prevent the dogma of Mary Mediatrix from being defined at any cost. One has only to read the accounts of the debates in the Council aula, published by the Documentation Catholique, or in Henri Fesquet’s Journal du Concile, or again in the Abbé Georges de Nantes’ Lettres à mes amis, to discover by what blasphemous declarations they dared to oppose this definition. Here is a passage from the chronicles of the Council, written by the Abbé de Nantes on October 1, 1964:

«September 16-17. “The Virgin Mary”. The proposed chapter is the minimalistic reduction of a first draft. Ample satisfaction has been given to the Left who are happy to love the Virgin provided that one speak of Her as little as possible and in the driest terms. Mary is not declared “Mother of the Church” as many were expecting; one is hard pushed to find a mention of Her already ancient title of Mediatrix; Her Coredemption is subtly circumvented. Yesterday Chapter VII called for the correction of abuses introduced into the cultus of the saints. Today Chapter VIII recommends preachers not to make Mary equal to Jesus and to be wary of idolatry in this area! This delirious self-criticism will at least have what it takes to tickle the ears of the most backward protestants…

«Thereupon, Cardinals Bea, Léger and Döpfner took up and developed all the specious or manifestly erroneous arguments of the so-called reformers of the sixteenth century against Marian theology and devotion. What a dismal chorus! It seems it is urgent to repress a devotion that does not lead to Christ; we must stick to the sure and ancient data of Scripture and Tradition, and in this domain, but contrary to the Council’s general pretensions, we must put the brakes on theological development and go backwards, we must distrust popular sentiment and deny spontaneous devotion. Ecumenism demands it!

«Thanks be to God! a number of Fathers manifested their indignation. Firstly, they had been tricked by the minimalists who had reduced and amputated this schema on the pretext of inserting it into the treatise on the Church; next, everything that had been said against Mary and against Her cultus was offensive to Catholic ears, unjust to the Church and grossly contrary to the truth. Cardinal Ruffini showed just how odiously restrictive this text was.

«Cardinal Wyszynski and other Fathers asked, in the name of hundreds of bishops, for a solemn consecration of the Church to Mary and even, to respond to the expectation of Our Lady of Fatima, for the consecration of the world, including Russia, to Her Immaculate Heart. To entrust oneself to Her “would be an act of faith and devotion, helping to obtain the Church’s freedom”.

«They defended every one of Mary’s disputed titles: “It would be a scandal in the eyes of believers to rob Mary of Her title of Mediatrix”, said Msgr. Rendeiro, particularly, Msgr. van Lierde added, as this title is “much better understood than is often said”. Several of them proved that, far from being an obstacle to ecumenism, the glories of Mary and of Her cultus would aid it powerfully. Cardinal Suenens, breaking with the solidarity of the reformists to their great indignation, thought the schema had been scaled down too far and protested that “christocentrism” should not become “antimarian”. Finally, avenging the outraged Church, the Rev. Fr. Fernandez, Master General of the Dominicans, gave a fitting reply to the odious recommendation not to exalt the Virgin to the equal of Her Son: “Has there ever existed a true theologian, a true preacher who could have taught such a thing? Allowing this recommendation to stand would make people believe that this deviation has actually existed in the Catholic Church and would justify Protestantism.” Just so! The chapter stood poised to be shelved, the underground labours of the reformists to be checked.

«A cunning manoeuvre would save everything. French bishops, Msgr. Le Couëdic and Msgr. Ancel, a Mexican, pretended to view this text as a wise compromise formula, capable therefore of securing unanimity. To get the point across, H. Exc. Ancel saw fit to declare that, now that he had done more study, he no longer believed in Mary Mediatrix. Some believe in it, others not, so let us vote for a text that stays in the middle.

«As if by chance, the question was settled the next day by Cardinals Frings and Alfrink who invited everyone to sacrifice his own opinions in the interests of the necessary… unanimity! In reality, this was an appeal to the believers to join the unbelievers in their denials and to sacrifice the Virgin Mary to this tyrannical minority. As Msgr. Carli would point out, oh ever so politely! these concessions, these doubts, this respect for others are one-sided. When it comes to exalting not the Queen of Heaven but the episcopate, then neither the fear of novel words, nor the silence of Scripture and Tradition, nor the opposition of part of the assembly are allowed to obstruct the proclamation and imposition on the Church of the ideas of one party!

«If anything is to block the path of subversion at the Council, it must be the rejection, by an overwhelming majority, of this obscene chapter. Freed from all constraint, the Fathers would certainly reject it. But the system is too powerful and carries them before it irresistibly. Let us hope for a miracle! It is certain that there is an incompatibility between the reformist party and the Virgin Mary, Our Lady of Lourdes and of Fatima!⁵⁹»

When one knows how much odium and contempt was heaped on the Most Blessed Virgin Mary at Vatican Council II, one understands why, during His apparitions at Pontevedra, Our Lord was so insistent in asking for the practice of reparatory devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary; one is no longer is surprised at the vigour of His complaints and His desire to see fervent souls consoling the Immaculate Heart of the most tender of mothers, so horribly outraged. Certainly, in Russia, bolshevism tried to destroy by every means the traditional veneration of the Russian people for the Mother of God. Sacred icons were either destroyed or hidden. But there is something even graver than these offences committed by apostates and infidels. It is the blasphemies of rebellious sons, yes, the blasphemies of the Catholic Church’s own children towards the Immaculate Heart of Mary, of the kind that rang out in Saint Peter’s Basilica at the Vatican II Council. With the passing of time, the message of Pontevedra appears to us astonishingly prophetic.

During that autumn of 64, the Abbé Laurentin had an influence over the Council’s debates that should not be forgotten. The book he had recently published, La question mariale, was a minimalist plea of consummate ingenuity and hypocrisy. He insinuated that the definition of the universal mediation of the Virgin Mary was inopportune, all the while claiming to follow a “middle course” that avoided slipping on one side into «a Christianity of the Virgin in which Saint Paul would not recognise himself» and on the other side into «a Christianity without the Virgin that would no longer be Catholic»⁶⁰. Furthermore, he earnestly encouraged the «hierarchy» to «moderate discreetly the excesses» of those whose «religion has practically been reduced to recent apparitions, particularly Fatima». Woe to those Catholics who «tend in practice to behave as if the Virgin, or even the message of some apparition, was held as “the means of salvation”»! «The hierarchy» must «reintegrate this feverish piety into a Catholic framework». Laurentin attacked the Fatima message with arguments drawn from the murky waters of Protestant theology. He had no qualms about throwing the general public worthless objections against the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, presenting them as very serious⁶¹. Reading these pages one understands why our expert then went on to analyse Paul VI’s speech of November 21, 1964, taking evident pleasure in showing that the Pope had not consecrated the world to Mary, but that he had simply entrusted or recommended it to Mary. One also grasps why the French bishops were so opposed to a consecration of Russia, or of the world, to the Immaculate Heart of Mary⁶². John Haffert recounts the altercation between Msgr. Venancio and one of them, a few days before November 21, 1964: «You will get something», the French prelate told him, «but it will not be the collegial consecration!» This bishop waved his finger as though in anger⁶³.

Chapter VIII of Lumen Gentium on the Virgin Mary, which was passed by the Fathers in its final form on November 18, 1964, did contain the word “mediatrix”, but the dogma of Mary Mediatrix of all graces was not for all that defined. Let us quote its article 62: «The Church invokes the Blessed Virgin under the titles of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix and Mediatrix. This, however, is so to be understood that it neither takes away anything from, nor adds anything to, the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator. For no creature can ever be put on the same level with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer… The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary…»

Laurentin, the unhappy man! had himself recommended this solution. In a study entitled “Must Vatican II’s Marian chapter speak of mediation?” and published by the Dutch service Documentatie Centrum Concilie, he made the following suggestion:

After explaining how «the Virgin Mary shares in the whole mystery of salvation through her active and profound involvement in every intention and action of Christ, an explicit reference might be made to the word mediatrix to indicate the legitimacy of this ill defined word, stating: “Because of this intention and this living relationship, Christian piety has given Mary the titles of advocate, mediatrix, queen of Christians, etc.”

«Or again more profoundly: “For centuries Christian piety has striven to express by countless formulas, titles and figures this singular and ineffable excellence of Mary over the other saints. The Council, far from condemning these pious expressions, approves and praises them, on condition firstly that they are well understood, that is to say, in Mary’s subordination to Christ, the one Redeemer and universal Mediator; and next that these pious formulas are never considered dogmas of faith, especially as Catholic theologians have often, and with good reason, been in some disagreement over their precise meaning.”⁶⁴»

The first of these two suggestions was taken up by the Secretary of the Theological Commission, but not the second which would have encountered strong opposition among the Fathers, as it too plainly presented the universal Mediation of the Virgin Mary as a theological opinion and one that was highly debatable.

The experts who drew up the schemas revealed their intrigues, successes and hidden intentions in the commentaries on the Acts of Vatican II published in the Unam Sanctam collection. The article by Father Barauna O.F.M., “The Most Blessed Virgin in the service of the economy of salvation”, is highly instructive. Let us pick out some of its admissions:

«So those who would seek to find in the Constitution a quantitative development in Marian theology, in the sense, for example, of a new dogma – as many Fathers were hoping in regard to certain doctrines, such as the spiritual maternity or the mediation – would inevitably be disappointed. The pastoral character of the Council exerted a decisive influence in this domain… Concretely speaking, it was important before all else not to define a new dogma, either because the doctrines in question had not yet acquired the internal maturation required, or by reason of the inconvenience that a definition of this kind would entail for ecumenical dialogue… One notices above all a great effort to reduce, to include, to integrate, to “refocus”.»

They had resigned themselves «to a sort of compromise, consisting in placing the term “Mediatrix” in a context such that the uniqueness and transcendence of Christ’s mediation would be fully safeguarded. In this context, the concept of Marian “mediation” is mentioned only once, and even then incidentally, whereas the spiritual maternity is presented three times… The Council prefers to go back to the biblical language in which Mary is essentially Mother… It does not speak about the “Mediatrix of all graces”, nor is it said that Mary “distributes” graces, etc.

«Shortly before the Council’s second session, we asked a Protestant observer what he thought of the schema De Beata Maria Virgine Matre Ecclesiae. His response was categorical: “For ecumenical dialogue the approval of this schema would be a disaster. How can a Council make pronouncements about Mary without first dealing with far more central subjects, such as the Most Holy Trinity and Jesus Christ?” During the third session, I had the opportunity to ask the same observer what he thought of the new Marian chapter about to be promulgated: “Now that is something else!” he replied.⁶⁵»

It certainly was “something else” for, as the Abbé de Nantes underlines, «the thesis of the minimalists had triumphed: the Virgin Mary was considered from the perspective of our salvation, not for the sake of God nor for the sake of Herself, but for the sake of ourselves, “with regard to our salvation in the Church”». Our Father observed that «they no longer want to proclaim Her beauty, Her glory, Her grace, but only Her service! And that in the declared intention of reintegrating Mary into humanity, alongside sinners, whereas the Tradition and devotion of centuries has placed Her alongside Christ Our Saviour as Coredemptrix, and alongside God as Mediatrix… Another deliberate and very contemporary deviation: the Council passes very quickly over Mary’s presence at the foot of the Cross and Her active participation in our redemption through Her admirable compassion. All on the pretext of concentrating our attention on Her role as “Mother of Jesus”.⁶⁶»

Our Lord’s ecumenical views and designs, clearly revealed at Fatima, are diametrically opposed to the ecumenism of Vatican II. The message of Fatima teaches us that God’s first wish is to save and convert Orthodox Russia through the double mediation of His most Holy Mother and of the hierarchy of His one true Church. When the Pope and the bishops accomplish the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the Church will show Her communion in the faith with Orthodoxy, since in the East the dogma of the Mediation of the Queen of Heaven is deeply rooted in tradition.

Now according to Heaven’s promises, it is through this act of faith in Mary Mediatrix, it is through this appeal of the Catholic hierarchy to the all-powerful Mediation of the Immaculate Virgin that the Russian Orthodox will obtain the grace of their conversion, that is to say their return en masse to the one fold of Christ, an event truly unheard of, an incomparable miracle which will excite the wonder of all schismatics and heretics throughout the world and, shortly afterwards, their conversion.

At the Council, by extolling Congarian ecumenism, the Church proceeded down an entirely different path. Vatican II neither hoped for nor even envisaged the return of the lost sheep to the bosom of the One Church of Christ; instead it recommended a search for Christian unity in an egalitarian reconciliation with schismatic and heretical sects. Making peace with the adversary, maintaining a respectful dialogue with the leaders of heretical and Protestant communities, and renouncing anything that could create obstacles to mutual understanding, these are the things that were to lead the Council Fathers so blithely to sacrifice the Catholic faith. Did not Pope Paul VI himself say: «We do not want to turn our faith into an occasion of polemics with our separated brethren»⁶⁷? The Council’s abandonment of dogma and its outrages against the Immaculate Mediatrix were the fruits of this disastrous ecumenism. It is not surprising, therefore, that the only bishop, to our knowledge, to have called in the Council aula for the consecration of Russia, Msgr. Mingo, Bishop of Monreale in Sicily, had also battled for the definition of Mary Mediatrix⁶⁸ and against Congarian ecumenism⁶⁹.
 

THE CULTUS OF THE VIRGIN ABANDONED AND DEVALUED.

Over the course of Vatican II’s four sessions, not one bishop, not even a Portuguese prelate⁷⁰, ever stood up in the chamber and entreated the Fathers to embrace and recommend the devotion of reparation to the Immaculate Heart, in keeping with Heaven’s wishes.

However, several bishops were alarmed to see the Council totally neglecting the cultus of the Virgin Mary. «We know from an authorised source», writes Fr. Luis Cerdeira O.P., «that, when number 67 of Lumen Gentium was being written, experts and Council Fathers insisted that any ex professo reference to devotion to the Rosary must use one of these expressions or their equivalents: Utpote Rosarium, like the Rosary; verbi gratia Rosarium, for example the Rosary.⁷¹» During the second session, Msgr. Rendeiro expressed «the desire that the Sacred Council should see fit to enlighten the intelligence of the Church by exalting and recommending to both priests and faithful that form of devotion which is expressed by the Marian Rosary». Indeed, this seemed indispensable to him as there could be heard «in the chorus of theologians and liturgists some discordant voices. One or two of these, falling into the excess of a sort of “hyperliturgism”, declare that the recitation of the Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary should be discarded, particularly in public prayers, and that a truly liturgical cultus is sufficient.⁷²» At the third session, speaking in the name of thirteen bishops, Cardinal Cerejeira made a written request for the following amendment: «To the words “the practices and exercises of piety” (in no. 67 of Lumen Gentium), let there be added: “among which the Rosary holds a place of distinction”, so that it reads: “the practices and exercises of piety, among which the Rosary holds a place of distinction”.⁷³» In support of his request, Cardinal Cerejeira advanced five reasons of both a theological and pastoral nature. It is notable however – and how regrettable! – that neither Msgr. Rendeiro, the Portuguese Bishop of Faro, nor the Patriarch of Lisbon made any reference to the revelations of Fatima to justify their request. Finally, the commission drawing up the chapter on the Virgin Mary ruled that «the Council ought not to designate any devotion in particular»⁷⁴. As a result, the Rosary is not mentioned in the Acts of Vatican II.

One is no longer surprised, therefore, at the catastrophic decline of this devotion after the Council. Let us quote a single statistic. The newspaper La Croix, for July 11, 1974, recorded a decline in the Rosary production industry at Ambert: one year’s output was now equivalent to what had been manufactured and sold in just one month in the Fifties!

All the Fathers of Vatican II officially adhered to its minimalist teaching on the Most Blessed Virgin. When the definitive text concerning the Virgin Mary, supposedly revised in light of the juxta modum votes, was submitted to a vote on November 18, 1964, only twenty-three Fathers voted against it. And not one of these opponents created a commotion. And yet, according to the message of Fatima, there is no crime more unforgivable in Our Lord’s eyes than that of despising His Holy Mother and outraging Her Immaculate Heart which is the sanctuary of the Holy Spirit. In her conversation with Fr. Fuentes, Sister Lucy herself presented this sin as «the blasphemy against the Spirit which will not be forgiven, either in this world or in the next» (Mt 12:31-32).

The liturgical reform that followed the Council diminished the cultus of the Virgin Mary. The motu proprio of February 19, 1969 suppressed from the Roman Missal numerous feasts including those of the Holy Name of Mary, Our Lady of Mercy, and the Seven Sorrows of the Blessed Virgin Mary⁷⁵. The Visitation was moved to May 31, in place of Mary Queen, while the feast of “Mary Mediatrix of all graces”, formerly celebrated on that same day, disappeared altogether from the Roman Missal.

The feast of Our Lady of the Most Holy Rosary of Fatima, fixed for May 13 and granted to the diocese of Leiria by the papal brief Miris Modis of December 13, 1962, was not listed in the Roman Calendar of the universal Church⁷⁶.

Pius XII had extended the Feast of the Immaculate Heart of Mary to the whole world as a rite of the second class. He had responded imperfectly to the request of Sister Lucy, who had asked that it become «one of the principal feasts of Holy Church: a feast of the first class». And the seer specified: «This desire is not mine alone. Someone deposited it within me. It derives from the Most Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary.⁷⁷»

Now the new Ordo neglected this feast: it made it nothing but a simple optional memoria on the Saturday following the second Sunday after Pentecost. This feast, lacking its own Office and Mass, was therefore relegated to a position after the feria, after the ordinary feasts of the Saints and the obligatory memorias. This optional memoria was omitted as soon as there was a conflict with another memoria.

So scandalous was this that petitions were addressed to the Vatican asking for the Immaculate Heart of Mary to be liturgically honoured and celebrated again. Alas, the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship only responded in a very partial manner: by a decree dated January 1, 1996, it listed the commemoration of the Immaculate Heart of Mary as an obligatory memoria in the universal Roman Calendar.

«The liturgical reform», writes Father Alonso, «undoubtedly caused Sister Lucy great personal suffering. It had failed to respect a venerable tradition that had gradually taken shape over the centuries around the specific liturgical signification of the Feast of Mary’s Heart. Nor had it shown any respect or deference to a revelation from Heaven, one possessed of all the guarantees of the Church, indicating that devotion to this Immaculate Heart is a necessity for the Church of our time. This Heart is presented in all the richness of its eschatological hope and yet, at least in the new reform of the liturgy, this hope has been obscured.⁷⁸»

To our knowledge, Sister Lucy has never spoken enthusiastically, or even favourably, of the Reform of the Church decreed at Vatican Council II. In her already published writings, one rarely finds any mention of Vatican II. Sister Lucy spoke of it in a letter of September 16, 1970, addressed to Mother Maria José Martins. Having explained that the prayer of the Rosary is necessary to preserve the faith, she specified:

«This is why the devil is waging war against it! And the worst of it is that he has succeeded in leading into error and deceiving souls who bear a heavy responsibility because of the position they occupy!... It is a case of the blind leading the blind... And they claim to base themselves on the Council! And they fail to see that the Sacred Council ordered the preservation of all devotions that have been practised over the years in honour of the Immaculate Virgin, the Mother of God, and that the prayer of the Rosary or the chaplet is one of the principal devotions we are bound to uphold, as this is what the Sacred Council and the Supreme Pontiff ordered, namely that we preserve it.⁷⁹»

Sister Lucy referred to the Council using a term which was certainly traditional: the Sacred Council (Sag. Concilio). But this solemn formula cannot stop us noticing the limited character of this reference to Vatican II which, as we have seen, does not even contain a single explicit mention of the Rosary. So in no way are we dealing with a eulogy of the conciliar Reform. Sister Lucy was simply expressing her indignation that the progressivists were using the directives of the Pope and the Council as their authority to discredit the practice of the Holy Rosary, as though they had condemned and forbidden it⁸⁰.
 

THE «LARGE CITY HALF IN RUINS», STREWN WITH «CORPSES».

The Reform of the Church undertaken by John XXIII at the opening of the Council to bring it into “symbiosis” with the modern world, a reform subsequently taken up, reined in, guided and managed by the expert hand of Paul VI, failed to produce the fruits anticipated and announced by these two Popes. The Abbé de Nantes has often reminded his readers of this. In January 1969, he wrote:

«At the end of this third postconciliar year, we must first remark on the total, all-encompassing error of the prophets of joy. They promised us universal peace; it was, they said, achievable and imminent. We have seen the opposite, the continuance of local wars continuing, the festering of other conflicts, and great armies taking up attack positions for the Third World War. They also told us that, once the peoples had greater access to culture and material goods, they would lose their revolutionary zest; the world was about to enter a golden age of tranquillity. Once again all this has been belied by events; we have experienced the anarchical agitations of May 68 and the protests against the “consumer society”, that is to say, the calling into question of that Masdu humanism and progress which, they all dreamed, would lead to universal reconciliation.

«These prophets were similarly mistaken in their announcement of a springtime of the Church, an extraordinary renewal, following her return to the Gospel and her opening to the world. It is the opposite that has proved true, from malaise to crisis and from crisis to the “decomposition of Catholicism”, to the “auto-demolition of the Church”. And, prodigious blindness, they see in this fatal malady, and as a cause for self-congratulation, the labour-pains of an imminent miraculous birth.

«The immense thirst for licence and mental disorder that characterises the human animal when it is too well nourished and satisfied has now taken hold of the men of the Church. We find an admission of this in these new catechisms that have been published this year in several nations, and those that do not yet have their own are working feverishly away at them. These catechisms are evidently in flagrant contradiction with the Catholic catechism for which they are being substituted as a matter of urgency. No matter in what ineptitudes, errors and heresies they abound, no one is willing to ban them. Rome may point out their essential shortcomings, but she dare not proscribe their use! It is “irreversible”. In line with Vatican II, in keeping with the synarchical pact that binds Paul VI and the episcopates of the majority, the world must be gratified and given a new religion, one that is agreeable and flattering. We are going to need a new Elijah and his zeal for the House of God.

«“If the salt loses its savour”… We are at that point now. 1968 presents all the symptoms of cadaveric decomposition […]. “Jam foetet”⁸¹, just like Lazarus after three days. After three years of reform, the Church of Vatican II already smells. It is the smell of decomposition, of the auto-demolition of religion wrought by its own ministers. The odour of putrefaction leads straight back to Rome.⁸²»

Had not Pope Paul VI himself admitted his disappointment on December 7, 1969: «The Church is in a disturbed period of self-criticism, one might even say of self-destruction. It is an acute and complex upheaval which nobody could have foreseen after the Council. We had in mind a flowering, a healthy expansion of the conceptions ripened in the great sessions of the Council. This aspect also exists. But... we have come to notice above all its sorrowful aspect. It is as almost as if the Church were attacking herself.»

The Abbé de Nantes immediately responded to this: «But yes! it was foreseeable, it was even inevitable.⁸³» He, in any case, had foreseen it… Let us listen to the public testimony of a diocesan priest at the meeting organised by the League of the Catholic Counter-Reformation, in the great hall of the Mutualité in Paris, on October 14, 1971:

«As soon as the Council closed, one immediately noticed in the parishes, “on the ground”, a startling contrast between the high-sounding optimism of the Reform’s theoreticians and the chilling of hearts, the falling-off of religious practice and the general indifference. At the time I was in Les Lilas, well placed to judge of such matters! It was the opponent of the Council who had seen things correctly. Through systematic pessimism? No, that would be jumping to conclusions. He had announced as inescapable the very crisis that had come about and in the form I was observing. And he had shown in advance that it would be a direct result of the Council: logically, this Reform of the Church would be her ruin, and her ruin would spell disaster for the world. Every day, on a hundred occasions in my ministry, I was forced to accept the truth of his demonstrations: everything was tending to confusion, scepticism, disorder… Six years have passed. That there is a crisis in the Church, no one any longer disputes. That this ruin dates from the Council, everything proves and, most brutally, the statistics. So is it still possible to deny that the Council is its direct, determinant and enduring cause?

«The Abbé de Nantes established all this a priori, that is to say before the events furnished the proof, simply by a detailed study of the conciliar documents. He was able see the effects within the causes themselves, just as Bainville, with incredible precision, was able to read between the lines of the Treaty of Versailles and see the chain of events that, twenty years later, would give rise to the Second World War. To this degree, the forecast seems almost prophetic. These specialist works honour the genius of their authors, although they have little influence on the masses.

«But after the events, a posteriori, their demonstrations become blindingly obvious because they are corroborated by the facts. And it would be criminal to continue to dispute them. Does not the Gospel tell us: “You shall know them by their fruits…”?

«When a priest has seen for himself, on a daily basis, these fruits of the conciliar Reform, which represent for them all a frightful decomposition of Catholicism within just five years, how could he hesitate for a second to identify this Council as the origin of all our trouble?⁸⁴»

We now understand, after the revelation to the world of the Third Secret of Fatima, that the disaster created by the conciliar Reform – the Holy City devastated by the Revolution of Vatican II – was shown by Our Lady to the three shepherd children on July 13, 1917 under a symbolic image:

«The Holy Father passed through a large city half in ruins […], he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way.»

Let us follow our Brother Bruno de Jésus in his exegetical commentary on the vision:

«According to the Book of the Apocalypse, “a large city” in ruins and filled with corpses recalls the Rome of Nero, punished for its double crime of idolatry (Ap 17:4) and murder (Ap 17:6).

«The association of the “steep mountain” and the “large city” in the vision of the Secret recalls Armageddon, “the mountain of Megiddo” (Ap 16:16), on which the demons assemble the kings of the earth for the final combat. This eschatological gathering had been prophesied in Ezekiel 38-39, which announces the attack on the mountains of Israel (Ez 38:8; 39:2,4,17). It is in Megiddo that the holy King Josiah, conquered and killed by Pharaoh, was long mourned by his inconsolable people (2 K 23:29-30).

«In the vision of Fatima, the “large city” crossed by the Pope is Christian Rome, an image of the Church ruined by the conciliar reform. It is the Holy City, the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church in a state of auto-demolition, fallen prey to the smoke of Satan, by Paul VI’s very own admission, ever since that Pope himself shook its foundations, levelled its ramparts, and profaned and devastated the Sanctuary.⁸⁵»

Sister Lucy was probably alluding to this terrible calamity, the worst of all, on December 26, 1957, when she said to Father Fuentes: «The punishment from Heaven is imminent. It will be very sad for everyone and there will be no cause for rejoicing if the world does not pray and do penance beforehand.⁸⁶» The messenger of Heaven spoke as a prophet, having contemplated with fear, on July 13, 1917, the large city half in ruins, strewn with corpses.

But let us return to the exegetical commentary on the vision.

The presence of «corpses» lying on the «way» is a sign of divine punishment: «Yahweh’s anger burns against His people: He has stretched out His hand to strike them; the mountains tremble, and their corpses are like the mire in the middle of the streets. But His anger is not calmed, His hand is still raised.» (Is 5:25)

In the Old Testament, not to have a burial was the most terrible of punishments: «At that time, says Yahweh, they shall bring out from their graves the bones of the kings of Judah, the bones of princes, the bones of priests, the bones of prophets and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem. And they shall spread them out before the sun, before the moon, and before the whole host of heaven, which they have served and after which they have walked, and which they have worshipped. They shall not be gathered, nor shall they be buried; they shall be as dung on the surface of the earth.» (Jr 8:1-2; cf. 9:21; 16:4; 25:33)

Does that mean that the «corpses» encountered by the Holy Father «on his way» were guilty of the same idolatry as the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the time of Jeremiah? Most definitely! Already in 1964, well before the interfaith meetings organised by John Paul II, Rome had become the theatre of an idolatrous cult similar to that which was rampant in Jerusalem on the eve of its destruction by Nebuchadnezzar in 586 BC.

«The Pope brought back from Bombay a statue of the god Krishna, the eighth incarnation of Vishnu, and this is certainly the first time that an idol has ever entered the City of God in an official capacity», protested the Abbé de Nantes indignantly, and he was in fact the only one, just like Jeremiah at the time of Zedekiah! «We are well on the way to integrating the Church with the United Nations», he observed, «and reaching a general understanding with Buddhism in Asia, Islam in Africa and Communism in Europe.⁸⁷»

«The corpses», remarks Brother Bruno de Jésus, «are those which Saint John refers to in his letter to the Church of Sardis: “I know all about you: how you are reputed to be alive and yet are dead.” (Ap 3:1)⁸⁸»

This message of Saint John’s is directly applicable to the conciliar Church ravaged by the modernist and progressivist cancer. The works of death of the disastrous conciliar reform may be detailed. Less than two years after the close of Vatican II, the Abbé de Nantes had already summarised the tragic state of affairs:

«Satan has free roam in the Church. He debauches monks and nuns, just as he did in Luther’s day. Many receive Holy Communion – standing, of course! – but scarcely anyone goes to Confession. Preaching is everywhere heretical, worldly and socialist. Worship is profaned. Thus, whether they be victims or accomplices of this “new way of feeling, desiring and behaving” (Paul VI, January 6, 1964), all Catholics, even the best of them, are becoming habituated to a religion which is no longer that of Jesus Christ or the saints. Should someone remind them of this religion, they will suddenly realise that they have lost it and will no longer want it. Thus it is that everyone is marching under the banner of the Pope and the Council towards the great Apostasy.⁸⁹»

It is notable that at the end of the Sixties Sister Lucy was alarmed at the campaigns that the progressivists were waging, even in Portugal, against the devotion of the Holy Rosary. She wrote at the time to Father Umberto Pasquale: «We see, alas, the lamentable ruins that the demon has caused.⁹⁰»

The Church was falling into ruin but only by half, because there still existed Catholics whose innocent souls had not let themselves be perverted by heresy.

«There are all those bishops, priests and faithful», noted the Abbé de Nantes, «who follow the movement out of obedience, on whom no demands have been placed and who understand nothing more about it. “Blessed are the simple in spirit.”⁹¹

«In this apostasy of both the head and the members, it is a miracle to see so many good priests and faithful Catholics, the former wearing themselves out in their arid ministry, the latter practising their damaged religion. They retain confidence in Christ, devotion to His Holy Mother, and belief in the Real Presence and the Holy Sacrifice. They blindly obey their bishops through fear of losing their souls. And they hate us for our terrible criticisms of the Pope, of the Pope especially, and of the bishops and of everything! But even more, they condemn schism.

«God knows, however, how much we admire these priests, these members of the faithful, for they are the holiness of the Church, they are her charity.⁹²»
 

Endnotes

(1) A. M. Martins, Fatima e o Coraçao de Maria, Loyola, 1984, p. 93.
(2) J. Haffert, Fatima, apostolat mondial, Téqui, 1984, p. 109-110.
(3) This appeal is mentioned by the Abbé Caillon in his lectures on Fatima.
(4) Unfortunately, this was not the exact request of Our Lady of Fatima who had asked for the consecration of Russia, and of Russia alone!
(5) Quoted by the Voz da Fatima, no. 496, January 1964.
(6) Cf. Netter, Fatima Chronik, Grafica de Leiria, 1970, p. 57.
(7) The conciliar debates were published in full by the Vatican. This declaration by Cardinal Wyszynski is quoted in the Acta Synodalia sacrosancti Concilii oecumenici Vaticani II (ASCO VII), vol. III, pars I, Rome, Vatican Polyglot, 1973, p. 441-444.
(8) ASCO VII, vol. III, pars I, p. 465.
(9) Informations catholiques internationales, no. 225, October 1, 1964, p. 10.
(10) ACSO VII, vol. III, pars I, p. 507.
(11) Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques, 1966, p. 499, extracts.
(12) Nevertheless, in his commentary on this speech, Laurentin committed a major gaffe which undermined his scholarly analysis. Our expert wrote: «Paul VI no longer speaks of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but of the Heavenly Mother, without further precision.» But Pope Paul VI had twice mentioned the Immaculate Heart of Mary in this speech.
(13) Alonso, Fatima ante la Esfinge, Sol de Fatima, 1979, p. 115.
(14) John XXIII, Journal de l’âme, Cerf, 1964, p. 503-504.
(15) Hebblethwaite, John XXIII, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1985, p. 318.
(16) Ibid., p. 283.
(17) Ibid., p. 307.
(18) This speech was written by Cardinal Montini (cf. CRC no. 97, October 75, p. 13), but its themes matched the thinking of John XXIII who had no love for «the prophets of gloom».
(19) Résurrection, no. 7, July 2001, p. 13 sq.
(20) Résurrection, no. 7, July 2001, p. 15.
(21) Quoted by Antoine Wenger, Vatican II, chronique de la première session, Centurion, 1963, p. 207.
(22) Quoted in the article “De Benoît XV à Jean XXIII. Les relations entre le Vatican et le Kremlin”, published in the Informations catholiques internationales of January 1, 1963.
(23) Letter of Msgr. Georges Roche to Jean Madiran, dated May 14, 1984, published in the journal Itinéraires, no. 285, July-August 1984.
(24) Sergio Trasatti, Vatican-Kremlin. Les secrets d’un face à face, Payot, 1995, p. 198.
(25) Quoted by the newspaper Le Lorrain, February 9, 1963.
(26) Georges de Nantes, “L’Église à l’heure soviétique”, CRC no. 142, June 1979, p. 2.
(27) “De Vatican I à Vatican II”, France nouvelle, no. 900, January 16, 1963. The Saint Benedict Fraternity for a Christian Europe published on April 11, 1988 a very thorough dossier on the secret agreements of 1962. This dossier proves the existence of these agreements, drawing on seven sources and fourteen different texts.
(28) CRC no. 142, p. 2.
(29) ASCO VII, vol. I, pars I, p. 239.
(30) Ibid., p. 241.
(31) Quoted by Wenger, op. cit., p. 235; Trasatti, op. cit., p. 208.
(32) Trasatti, op. cit., p. 209.
(33) Cf. Wiltgen, The Rhine flows into the Tiber, Augustine Publishing Company, 1978, p. 272-3.
(34) ASCO VII, vol. III, pars V, p. 378-379.
(35) D. C., 1965, col. 410.
(36) In his book Perche il Concilio no ha condannato il Communismo, Giovanni Scantamburlo states that 334 Fathers had supported this petition on October 9, 1965, each of them having signed a separate slip. Ten days later, 71 new petitions were presented to the General Secretariat of the Council. And subsequently, 30 more Fathers signed this petition. Wiltgen speaks throughout his account of the petition of «450 Council Fathers» (cf. Wiltgen, op. cit., p. 272-278).
(37) The text of this petition was published in full in the D. C., 1966, col. 361-362.
(38) The journalist Ralph Wiltgen, in Rome at the time, revealed on November 23, 1965 that this petition had been put to one side by Msgr. Glorieux «who held nearly half a dozen Vatican positions» (The Rhine flows into the Tiber, p. 276). In 1985, the Abbé Pierre Caillon managed to question Msgr. Glorieux. In a letter dated August 17, 1985, he explained: «Msgr. Glorieux is still alive. He is now retired in Rome in a house for the clergy. I saw him in his office in Rome on Thursday, March 28 last. He admitted to me quite openly that it was he who had effected the disappearance of the petition of the bishops who were asking for the condemnation of communism. This good Msgr. Glorieux told me very pleasantly that several attempts had previously been made to obtain the condemnation of communism and that they had all been set aside, as they did not conform to the spirit of the Council.» (Private archives of the Little Brothers of the Sacred Heart, Fatima collection)
(39) The Abbé de Nantes publicly formulated this accusation against Paul VI and Msgr. Glorieux, which no one ever answered. Cf. Liber accusationis in Paulum Sextum, CRC, 1973, p. 83.
(40) Quoted in D. C., 1966, col. 363.
(41) Ibid., col. 365.
(42) “L’humanisme chrétien et Gaudium et spes”, CRC no. 60, September 1972, p. 7.
(43) ASCO VII, vol. II, pars IV, p. 51-52.
(44) Constitution Gaudium et Spes, no. 92.
(45) Constitution Lumen Gentium, no. 22.
(46) Laurentin, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et théologiques [RSPT], 1966, p. 498.
(47) Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile, Lethielleux, 1965, p. 175.
(48) D. C., 1960, col. 1542.
(49) Laurentin, RSPT, 1966, p. 498.
(50) Cf. Laurentin, La Vierge au Concile, p. 9.
(51) For example, by Pope Saint Pius X, in his encyclical Ad diem illum. Here is his reply to the objection of the unus Mediator of Saint Paul: Although the dispensation of graces is a right proper and peculiar to Christ, it was however given to the Virgin to share in it, being as She is «the most powerful Mediatrix and Advocate of the whole world before Her only Son». But whereas Jesus dispenses graces as their source, as the head of the Mystical Body, Mary functions as their aqueduct and channel. «It can be seen, therefore, that we are far from attributing to the Mother of God a virtue productive of grace, a virtue which belong to God alone. Nevertheless, because Mary surpasses all in holiness and in Her union with Jesus Christ, and because Jesus Christ made Her an associate in the work of redemption, She merits for us de congruo, as theologians say, what Jesus Christ merited for us de condigno, and She is the supreme minister of the dispensation of graces.»
(52) Acta et documenta Concilio oecumenico Vaticano II apparando, Series II, Praeparatoria, vol. II, pars IV, Rome, Vatican Polyglot, 1968, p. 777-778.
(53) Laurentin, RSPT, 1966, p. 498.
(54) Extracts from Wiltgen, op. cit., p. 90-92.
(55) Text distributed on October 27, 1963. Wiltgen, op. cit., p. 95.
(56) Wiltgen, op. cit., p. 95.
(57) Wenger, Vatican II. Chronique de la troisième session, Centurion, 1965, p. 122.
(58) Ibid., p. 97-98.
(59) Abbé G. de Nantes, Lettre à mes amis no. 185, October 1, 1964. A full account of these debates on the Virgin Mary on September 16 and 17, 1964, during the 81st and 82nd general congregations of the Council, was published in 1973 in ASCO VII, vol. III, pars I.
(60) Laurentin, La question mariale, Seuil, 1963, p. 81.
(61) Ibid., p. 35-37, 81-82.
(62) Cf. Wiltgen, op. cit., p. 241.
(63) J. Haffert, op. cit., p. 111.
(64) Laurentin, “Le chapitre marial doit-il parler de mediation?” D. C., 1964, col. 1256-1257.
(65) “La très Sainte Vierge au service de l’économie du salut”, Commentary on Lumen Gentium, Unam Sanctam collection, 51 C, Cerf, 1966, p. 1222-1239.
(66) Abbé de Nantes, “La perfection de l’amour”, CRC no. 61, October 1972, p. 6-7.
(67) Speech of September 29, 1963.
(68) Cf. ASCO VII, vol. III, pars I, p. 463-466.
(69) Cf. ASCO VII, vol. II, pars VI, p. 158-160.
(70) Cardinal Cerejeira simply signed a note inviting the bishops to take part in the celebrations of the fiftieth anniversary of the Fatima apparitions, and this was read out by Cardinal Felici at the Council’s final congregation on December 6, 1965 (cf. ASCO VII, vol. IV, pars VII, p. 642).
(71) Acta congressus Mariologici mariani in Lusitania anno 1967 celebrati, vol. VI, p. 331, Romae, A. M. I., 1970.
(72) ASCO VII, vol. II, pars III, p. 777-778.
(73) ASCO VII, vol. III, pars II, p. 99-100.
(74) J. Haffert, Marie sous le symbole du Coeur, p. 151; Fatima, apostolat mondial, p. 82 and 90.
(75) Cf. Instructions officielles sur les nouveaux rites de la Messe. Le calendrier. Les traductions liturgiques. Presented by the C.N.P.L., Centurion, September 1969.
(76) The feast was finally inscribed in the liturgical calendar of the universal Church in March 2002.
(77) Toute la vérité sur Fatima, vol. 3, p. 61.
(78) Alonso, Fatima, Espana, Rusia, Centro Mariano, 1976, p. 43.
(79) Quoted by Martins dos Reis, Uma vida ao serviço de Fatima, Porto, 1973, p. 379.
(80) The seer was probably aware of a document that at the time carried great weight in Portugal: the Portuguese Bishops’ pastoral letter for the jubilee of the Fatima apparitions. She was visibly inspired by the following passages in this text: «The Council, in chapter VIII of the Constitution Lumen Gentium, exhorts the sons of the Church to “hold in great esteem the practices and exercises of devotion which the Magisterium of the Church has recommended over the centuries in honour of the Most Blessed Virgin”.» Quoted in the journal Fatima 50, no. 1, May 13, 1967, p. 11, col. 1.
(81) “He already smells.” (Jn 11:39)
(82) CRC no. 16, January 1969.
(83) Ibid.
(84) CRC no. 50, November 1971, p. 5.
(85) CRC no. 368, June-July 2000, p. 23; CRC no. 369, August 2000, p. 12.
(86) Toute la vérité sur Fatima, vol. 3, p. 366 sq.
(87) Lettre à mes amis no. 195, January 25, 1965.
(88) CRC no. 368, p. 23.
(89) Lettre à mes amis no. 250, August 25, 1967.
(90) Letter of November 26, 1970. Infra, Chapter 4, Appendix 2.
(91) CRC no. 247, October 1988, p. 11.
(92) CRC no. 245, July-August 1988, p. 22.