Why I Believe In Our Lady Of Fatima (And So Should You)

 

Recently, there has been controversy on the Internet regarding Our Lady of Fatima. There have been people claiming the apparition never happened, or it was of diabolic origin. I have often said (and I continue to maintain) that Traditionalists should not get bogged down with studying private revelations, but should concentrate on solid theology and reading the works of the approved theologians. 

When people start to cast doubt (or worse, aspersions) upon approved private revelations, it only serves to sow doubt in the Church during the Great Apostasy, with no pope to answer inquiries and settle disputes. I agree that there should be no quibbling about what was "really" said by an approved apparition. I also agree that private revelations need not be believed as long as there is no disdain of ecclesiastical authority (more will be said on this point below). 

However, there are those who attack Fatima as "of the devil" which is blasphemous and impossible, since the Holy Ghost would protect the Holy Father from approving as "worthy of belief" anything that comes from Hell. Fatima was approved by Pope Pius XII himself.  To claim that Fatima is from Hell would be an indirect denial of the Indefectibility of the Church--i.e., the Church cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to Her members. If, ad arguendo, the apparition at Fatima didn't happen, it didn't produce anything contrary to Faith and Morals. Yet, it if came from Satan, there would have to be things contrary to Faith and/or morals, because the adversary of mankind does not do anything for our benefit.

My further research into Fatima, which I did in preparing this post, has made me see a nuance; I don't think it is possible to outright reject an approved private revelation without committing a sin of disdain against ecclesiastical authority. Hence, were one to reject Fatima (not as being diabolic, but just withholding belief) I personally don't think that can be done without concurrently holding the Church in contempt. (I have authorities to back up my assertion, but I submit all to the judgement of Holy Mother Church, should a true pope ever reign once more. I am not "making up sins" but as I shall hope to demonstrate, I honestly don't see how contempt for the Church cannot accompany discarding approved private revelations. It would never be heresy, but one cannot hold the Church in contempt without sin of some kind---Introibo). 

In this post I will explain why I believe in Fatima, and for good reasons that should make all Traditionalists accept it as "worthy of belief." 

 

First Reason: The Approval of Pope Pius XII

The greatest reason to accept the apparitions of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima is the approval of His Holiness Pope Pius XII. 

On June 13, 1940, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Saeculo Exeunte Octavo, issued on the occasion of the eighth centenary of the independence of Portugal. After exhorting Portugal to expand its missionary work, the Pontiff mentions Fatima directly in paragraph #17:

This holy and most urgent intention should have the principal place in the prayers of each priest. Those who have been called to the sacred orders of the contemplative life are to pray for this special intention, and the faithful, when reciting the rosary so highly commended by the Blessed Virgin at Fatima, should entreat this same Virgin to intercede in favor of this divine vocation in order that the missions will flourish. (Emphasis mine). 

Paragraph #52 states:

Without doubt God will shower upon the noble nation of Portugal the liberality of His blessings as he did at its birth. And the Blessed Virgin Mary of the Rosary, who is venerated at Fatima and is the same great Mother of God who obtained a great victory at Lepanto, will be with you with her powerful protection. (Emphasis mine). 

On August 12, 1950, Pope Pius XII promulgated his encyclical Humani Generis, which exposed and rejected some false opinions threatening to undermine the foundations of Catholic doctrine. His Holiness asked the great Thomist and Dominican theologian, Fr. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, a fervent anti-Modernist, to draft the encyclical. Paragraph number 20 of that document states:  

Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (Emphasis mine). 

Let's be clear: what is expounded in encyclical letters demands assent, and in an encyclical, Pope Pius XII states as a matter of fact that the Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima and "highly commended" the daily recitation of the rosary. Furthermore, it is the same Blessed Mother at Fatima who obtained the victory at the Battle of Lepanto. It is evident that Pope Pius believed in Fatima and uses the message of Fatima in a Magisterial document. Would the Holy Ghost permit a true pope to teach using a false/non-existent apparition? I answer in the negative. 

Radio Address of October 31, 1942

Pius XII broadcasted a radio address (Benedicite Deum) to pilgrims gathered at the Shrine of Fatima to mark the silver jubilee of the apparitions. In this broadcast, he specifically mentioned the events of Fatima and concluded by consecrating the world to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. (See Papal Documents on Mary, compiled and arranged by W.J. Doheny, C.S.C. and J.P. Kelly, S.T.D., [1954], pgs. 202-204). 

In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:

The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio, They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assume that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.

In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."

(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26). 

Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church. 

Again, would the Holy Ghost allow an authentic exercise of Magisterial authority to include an apparition which was non-existent? I answer in the negative. 

Raising the church in the Cova da Iria at Fatima to the rank of a minor basilica in 1954

The Basilica of Our Lady of the Rosary is located in the Cova da Iria area of Fátima, Portugal—the exact site where three shepherd children first reported visions of the Virgin Mary in 1917. Pope Pius XII officially elevated the sanctuary to a Minor Basilica on November 11, 1954. 

In the papal letter, the Pope refers to the shrine of Fatima as the place "where the Mother of God appeared in recent times as Our Lady of the Rosary," and adds that in the church are entombed the bodies of Francis and Jacinta Marto "who were privileged to behold the marvelous vision of the Mother of God." He also confesses his "special devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary of Fatima."

(See thecatholicnewsarchive.org/?a=d&d=tmon19630405-01.2.128&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN). 

Additional Magisterial authority affirms Fatima

• On May 13, 1930--after 13 years of investigating---Bishop da Silva of Leiria (the diocese in which Fatima is contained) gave official approval to the apparitions:

In virtue of considerations made known, and others which for reason of brevity we omit; humbly invoking the Divine Spirit and placing ourselves under the protection of the most Holy Virgin, and after hearing the opinions of our Rev. Advisors in this diocese, we hereby:

Declare worthy of belief, the visions of the shepherd children in the Cova da Iria, parish of Fatima, in this diocese, from the 13th May to 13th October, 1917.

• On October 1, 1930 the Sacred Penitentiary under Pope Pius XI granted a partial indulgence to those who individually visited the Shrine and prayed for the intentions of the Holy Father, and a plenary indulgence once a month to those who went there in a group. No doubt, the Vatican knew of the pending approval from the diocesan bishop.

Would the Holy Ghost permit the Church to give indulgences to a false/non-existent apparition? Once more, I answer in the negative.

Second Reason: The Miracle of the Sun

On October 13, 1917, approximately 70,000 people gathered in Fatima despite heavy rain, waiting to see if Mary’s promise would come true. Suddenly, the clouds broke, and the sun began to spin, change colors, and zigzag across the sky—something that seemingly defied all natural laws. Many thought it was the end of the world, while others fell to their knees in awe. 

However, skeptics claim that the Miracle was the result of a mass hallucination, rare atmospheric events, and the like. I could spend several posts just on these claims, yet I will make a terse explanation of why said claims fail:

• The timing of the event. The children (Lucia, Jacinta, and Francesco) told of the event beforehand. When skeptics claim rare meteorological events took place, in 1917 without modern technology, it is more than mere coincidence that the "rare events" happened on the same day predicted.

• The event could have been supernaturally caused. The event could have been superimposed on the minds of the attendees with physical consequences to accompany it (e.g. wet clothes drying). 

• The event was widely reported in mainstream, secular newspapers at the time. Notably, O Seculo, a prominent anti-clerical, pro-Mason, and secular newspaper in Lisbon, featured the headline "Como o sol bailou em Fátima ao meio-dia" ("How the sun danced at Fátima at noon") written by its founding director, Avelino de Almeida. 

• Even the most God-hating atheists cannot simply dismiss it. The "New Atheist" Richard Dawkins, mentions Fatima's Miracle of the Sun in his God-hating book The God Delusion:

On the face of it, mass visions, such as the report that seventy thousand pilgrims at Fatima in Portugal in 1917 saw the sun ‘tear itself from the heavens and come crashing down upon the multitude,’ are harder to write off…It is not easy to explain how seventy thousand people could share the same hallucination. But it is even harder to accept that it really happened without the rest of the world, outside Fatima, seeing it too — and not just seeing it, but feeling it as the catastrophic destruction of the solar system, including acceleration forces sufficient to hurl everybody into space. (Emphasis mine). 

Yet, it was most likely supernaturally imposed. How else can you explain:

• Pope Pius XII saw the Miracle of Fatima four separate times. 

In a handwritten note the pontiff wrote, “I have seen the ‘miracle of the sun,’ this is the pure truth.” He recorded this in his own handwritten notes, noting that he observed the sun behaving like an opaque, pale sphere surrounded by a luminous circle that moved and spun. These events occurred around the time he proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. He saw the Miracle on October 30, October 31, November 1, and November 8, 1950. October 30 and 31 were the two days prior to his proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption. November 1st was the day he promulgated Munificentissimus Deus, and November 8th was the Octave.

(See, e.g., https://aleteia.org/2019/05/13/pope-pius-xii-witnessed-the-fatima-miracle-of-the-sun-while-walking-in-the-vatican-gardens). 

Pope Pius never said he was "looking back in time," but rather that he saw the same phenomena, giving credence to the Miracle of the Sun as supernaturally imposed on the minds of the people chosen by God. It could have been accompanied by physical wonders as well in 1917. This explains why (a few) of the 70,000 allegedly saw nothing, God chose not to reveal the wonder to some for reasons known but to God Himself. Many atheists and skeptics were converted by the Miracle of the Sun.

Third Reason: The Holiness of the Seers

The three children had true sanctity at a young age demonstrated by the following:

Spirit of Reparation: After receiving a terrifying vision of hell, the children felt intense compassion for sinners. They dedicated their daily lives—offering up their lunches, enduring physical thirst, and wearing rough ropes—as acts of penance for the salvation of souls.

Devotion to the Rosary: They faithfully obeyed Our Lady’s request to pray the Rosary daily for world peace and the conversion of sinners.

Joy in Suffering: Despite enduring severe persecution, threats of death from local authorities, and the physical ravages of the 1918 influenza pandemic, the children maintained an unwavering, joyful trust in God.

Unlike the so-called "seers" of Garabandal and Medjugorje, the children of Fatima led holy lives. Francesco and Jacinta died as children and endured much, offering it up for the conversion of sinners. Lucia became a very holy nun. The three seers never made money off of Fatima, nor did they lead worldly lives like those of the false non-Church approved apparitions. Unfortunately, they cannot be called saints as Francesco and Jacinta were "canonized" by non-pope Bergoglio. Lucia likewise cannot be called "Venerable," as it was declared by the Vatican II sect, not the Roman Catholic Church. 

Fourth Reason: The Catholicity of the Message of Fatima

Fatima has several basic messages which are theologically sound, and laudable:

1. Pray the Rosary Daily

Mary asked the children to pray the Rosary every day for peace in the world and the conversion of sinners. This is why the Rosary is often associated with Fatima.

2. Offer Sacrifices for Sinners

She encouraged the children to offer small sacrifices for the conversion of souls, uniting their suffering with Christ’s.

3. The Vision of Hell

In July, Mary showed them a terrifying vision of hell, reminding them of the urgency of repentance and the need to pray for those far from God. Hell is real, and we need to save our souls, avoiding eternal torment away from God. 

4. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary

Mary revealed that Russia would spread great evils unless it was consecrated to her Immaculate Heart—a request that later played a major role in Church history.

(Taken from: focus.org/posts/what-happened-at-fatima-our-lady-of-fatima-explained; it sums up the message of Fatima well, yet I do not endorse the site--it is Vatican II sect).

I would like to add to the Message of Fatima, the importance of wearing the Scapular, and making the Church-approved and spiritually fruitful devotion of the Five First Saturdays in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

Fifth Reason: The Church Encourages the Messages of Approved Private Revelations

Is there any obligation on the part of the faithful to give credence to approved revelations? According to several approved theologians, the answer is a resounding YES:

Theologian Slater:  It is not heresy, though sinful, to reject what is known to have been revealed by God in a private revelation. (Manual of Moral Theology, [1925], pg. 111; Emphasis mine). This would seem to apply only to the seer.

Theologian Tanquerey: Many theologians are of the opinion that the persons themselves to whom such revelations are made and those for whom they are destined may believe in them with real Faith, provided they have had clear proof of their authenticity. (See The Spiritual Life: A Treatise on Ascetical and Mystical Theology, [1930], pg. 701; Emphasis mine). Fatima is an approved private revelation, whose message was intended for Catholics throughout the world.

Theologian Connell: A private revelation must be believed by those individuals for whom it is intended. However, no one is obliged to believe the statement of another that a private revelation has been made for him unless good assurance has been given that it is really from God. [Church approval is good assurance] Usually such assurance is given through evident miracles. [The Miracle of the Sun] Persons for whom the revelation is not intended are not bound to accept it as a divine message, although they would do wrong if they positively denied it or derided it when there is good evidence that it came from God.(See Outlines of Moral Theology [1952], pg.67; Emphasis mine). 

Theologian Marin: If, after a prudent judgment, it is determined that a given revelation is authentic, the one who has received the revelation should accept it in the spirit of faith. It is disputed among the theologians whether this act of faith is an act of divine faith; it seems to us that it is. Moreover, if a private revelation contains a message for others and it has been accepted as an authentic revelation, those persons also have an obligation to accept the truth of the revelation and act upon it. 

(See The Theology of Christian Perfection, [1954], pg.661; Emphasis mine).

Theologian Van Noort: It seems indisputable that even a private revelation—at least if it is concerned with matters bearing some relationship to God as our goal—can be believed by the same virtue of faith by which we believe a truth publicly revealed…Granting that the divine origin of the revelation can be established with certainty, the question arises whether such revelations not only can be believed but ought to be believed. Briefly we think the answer is this: such a revelation ought to be believed both by the one who receives it and by those for whom it is destined: the rest of the faithful cannot outrightly deny it without some sort of sin.

(See Dogmatic Theology, [1961], 3:215). 

Hence, Church approved private revelations seem to have some obligation for the faithful to whom they are directed. Think of the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus during this month of June. Can anyone worthy of the name Catholic seriously deny the authenticity of the private revelations of St. Margaret Mary Alacoque? Fatima has an incredible amount of evidence and the full approval of Pope Pius XII (and the implicit approval of Pope Pius XI). It's message is for all true Catholics the world over. In the words of theologian Van Noort, I don't think you can "outrightly deny it" without contempt for the Church and "some sort of sin." I retract my hitherto held belief that denying an approved private revelation outright can be done without concomitant contempt for Holy Mother Church.  

Objections Considered

There are many objections raised against Fatima, and I cannot possibly address them all. In this time of Great Apostasy, one must remember that without a pope, there is no Magisterial authority that can pass judgement on these issues and make necessary clarifications and distinctions. To bring them up only serves to sow doubt in the minds of the faithful when (in a very real sense) the Church cannot currently defend Her actions regarding the approval of Fatima.

Objection: The Blessed Mother was reported as appearing immodestly dressed.

Reply: Much of this "information" comes from sources of a dubious nature. Certain files are touted as "definitive" when such simply is not the case. Unfortunately, we can't get a Roman Congregation or a pope to give us the authentic sources in the Great Apostasy. Our Lady of Fatima said, “Certain fashions will be introduced that will offend Our Lord very much.” How does that jibe with the alleged reports of her immodest dress? Where did this accusation arise? Read the next objection and find out.

Objection: Fatima was predicted by occultists and is occult (of Satan).

Reply: An approved apparition cannot be of Satan. The Holy Ghost would not permit it.   

A group of occult psychics in Portu, Portugal claimed that “something transcendental” would occur on May 13,1917. And this was published in the Portuguese newspaper Jornal de Notícias. There was another prediction claimed to have been written on February 7, 1917 in Furtado de Mendonça, Portugal by way of “automatic writing” that moved the psychic’s hand and wrote the following backwards (and in Portuguese):

The day of May 13th will be one of great happiness for the good souls of the world…Always at your side shall ye have your friends, who will guide your steps and who will assist ye in your

work…The brilliant light of the Morning Star will illuminate the path.

~ Stella Matutina

So the above occult prophecy claimed that a lightbringer would illuminate a path on May 13, 1917. Stella is Latin for star. Matutina is associated with the morning. It may be relevant to note that the name Lucifer means lightbringer, and he is associated in sacred scripture with both the morning and stars (Isaiah 14:12-13), as well as becoming known as Satan the devil (Revelation 12:9). Although Jesus is also called the “Morning Star” (Revelation 22:16), using the type of automatic backward writing to reveal His mother does not seem to be biblically appropriate (cf. Isaiah 8:19-20), hence it should not be concluded that this Stella Matutina was Jesus. (From a booklet entitled  Why Pay Any Attention To Fatima, [hereinafter "WPATF"] no named author, pg. 33).

What is the source of this information? I referenced the book in the endnotes, Celestial Secrets: The Hidden History of the Fatima Incident (2007) by Joaquim Fernandes and Fina D'Armada. The authors believe that Our Lady was actually an alien sent by a UFO. There is a trio of books (this one and two others) attempting to prove this whacky thesis. Moreover, the books are promoted by  Andrew D. Basiago, a "UFOlogist." Besides an attempted run for President of the U.S. in 2016, Basiago claims he:

• Can teleport himself through time and space
• Has made contact with Bigfoot
• Went to Mars in 1981 and converses with Martians who live there 

(See, e.g.,https://www.inverse.com/article/14577-confessed-time-traveler-andrew-basiago-is-running-for-president-knows-he-ll-win)

These are the people we are supposed to believe over Church authority regarding Fatima. The trilogy is itself occult (talking to "beings from other worlds"--more than likely demons if not delusions of mental illness) and used by anti-Catholics to make Fatima look "demonic." Moreover, occultists will often use the superior knowledge of demons to make something true appear false and vice-versa--if such an occult prediction even happened. No less than 20 of the 96 endnotes reference this occult book.  

Accusation: The Blessed Mother was allegedly dressed immodestly.

Throughout the book, much is made of alleged claims by the seers of Fatima that Mary was immodestly dressed. From WPATF:

In 1917, the Catholic priest and investigator Canon Manuel Nunes Formigao interviewed the three Fatima children. Here is some of what he wrote:

Jacinta confirms that Our Lady’s dress fell only to the knees… Our Lady obviously could not have appeared other than dressed with the utmost decency and modesty…{This} constitutes a serious problem, opposing the very validity of the Apparition, giving rise in the spirit to the dread that this whole affair is a mystification, prepared by the Prince of Darkness. (pgs. 25-26).

This information is supplied by (you guessed it) Celestial Secrets. The dominant instrument used by the authors and promoters of that book, to convince the reader of their research prowess and to buildup interest and credibility for their product, is the highlighting of their previous visit to the secured Fatima Shrine archives in 1978. During that visit they were permitted to view the largely unknown personal notes of the local Fatima priests of that year of 1917, especially those who had directly interviewed the children. They have since been made public in 1992. They tell a different story from the cherry-picked quotes.

These initial recorded accounts by seer Jacinta (and Lucia) are tellingly conflicting with the young seer Francisco's descriptions, where the only knee-length clothing that he reports throughout all of his testimony was the mantle headpiece, a fact conveniently omitted, along with the fact that an investigative priest is supposed to be skeptical and not jump to supernatural conclusions in favor of the apparition. Even after that, the demonic must be considered as well. Lucia and Jacinta were no doubt scared by the questioning, and even probably misunderstood by the priest. The manifest weight of all the evidence explains why the Bishop approved the apparition as authentic upon the final report in 1930. 

Objection: The children at Fatima were given Holy Communion from a Chalice. That's against Church law. They were not fasting, and Francesco wasn't even sure what he received.

Reply: These are many objections that center on Church law, not Natural or Divine Positive Law. God can dispense from any ecclesiastical law. From the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion, issued in 1910 under Pope St. Pius X, it reads:

The Catholic Church, bearing this in mind, took care even from the beginning to bring the little ones to Christ through Eucharistic Communion, which was administered even to nursing infants. This, as was prescribed in almost all ancient Ritual books, was done at Baptism until the thirteenth century, and this custom prevailed in some places even later. It is still found in the Greek and Oriental Churches. But to remove the danger that infants might eject the Consecrated Host, the custom obtained from the beginning of administering the Eucharist to them under the species of wine only...

From all this it is clear that the age of discretion for receiving Holy Communion is that at which the child knows the difference between the Eucharistic Bread and ordinary, material bread, and can therefore approach the altar with proper devotion. Perfect knowledge of the things of faith, therefore, is not required, for an elementary knowledge suffices-some knowledge (aliqua cognitio); similarly full use of reason is not required, for a certain beginning of the use of reason, that is, some use of reason (aliqualis usus rationis) suffices. (Emphasis mine).

It is clear there is nothing contrary to Divine Positive Law regarding Holy Communion under the species of Wine, and "some use of reason"--(knowing the Eucharist is special) suffices. It was on this basis that the mentally retarded were allowed to receive Communion. Hence, Francesco knew receiving something (Communion) from an angel must be special. These "arguments" display a serious lack of theological knowledge.  

Objection: Lucia made predictions that didn't come true. Had the Blessed Mother truly spoken to her, the predictions would have been true. Lucia was wrong about the war ending soon, and Portugal did NOT "keep the dogma of the Faith" after Vatican II. 

Reply: Did Lucia really make "false predictions"? Some point to the prediction that if men didn't amend their lives a worse war (WWII) would begin "During the pontificate of Pope Pius XI." WWII began on September 1, 1939 with Hitler's invasion of Poland, almost six months into the pontificate of Pope Pius XII. Or did it? Many historians have WWII in four phases, and while the war in the West began in 1939, in the East it began with the invasion of China by the Imperial Japanese in 1937--during the pontificate of Pope Pius XI.

What about when Lucia claimed the war (WWI) would end "today" or "soon" and it didn't end until November 11, 1918? According to an amazing compilation on Fatima by Bernard F. Kahout entitled Fatima the Spectacular (2017) there are over twenty (20) differently worded statements o this point by the children of Fatima (Lucia and Jacinta principally). It makes sense given the length of the interrogations and their young age. I can't possibly repeat it all here, but a good case can be made that what Lucia said was "pray that the war come to an end." (See pgs. 44-55). No contradiction there. Lastly, we have no Magisterial authority to tell us which statement was the one truly stated by Our Lady. So why make a big deal of something that quite probably wasn't even said?

Lastly, a problem for me was the statement that "Portugal will always keep the dogma of the faith." According to many reports, I discovered the statement does NOT end with a period but an ellipsis. That makes it part of a sentence, and we don't know why the other part was left out or what it said. It might have read, "Portugal will always keep the dogma of the Faith until the end of the reign of Pope Pius XII" or similar words "until the second half of the 20th century," "until there is a false ecumenical council called by a false pope," etc. 

Conclusion

Did Our Lady appear at Fatima? Most assuredly, she did. I can no more deny Fatima than I can deny the revelations of Our Lord to His great saint, Margaret Mary Alacoque. However, I will not make private revelations the focal point of the Faith, nor should anyone. Can we simply deny Fatima (or any approved revelation) without contempt for the Church and some sin? I don't believe we can.

What is the purpose of having a Magisterium if we don't heed Her when She tells us what we can believe? Can we ever go wrong by believing in something the Church tells us is "worthy of belief"? No. Can we ever go wrong by not believing what the Church tells us is "worthy of belief"?  In many different ways we can, and most probably will. Our Lady of Fatima, ora pro nobis