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

Recognizing The Occult---Part 3

 

This is the third of some posts I will publish on occult symbolism. I've written much on occult practices and how it influences things like music and movies, but not so much on occult symbols. Sometimes my friends will ask, "I want to buy [certain item they show me] but a writing or a picture on it looks strange. Is it occult?" Good question. Sometimes someone will know something is occult, but they don't know exactly why it's bad, other than the general condemnation of the occult by the Church and found in the Bible. 

This post will continue to expose occult symbolism. While many things today are occult, not every symbol or writing we don't understand is automatically "occult." We must learn to discern. You may be better equipped to help a family member or friend who has some occult symbol in his/her possession and may not realize it, thinking it harmless. My first post in this series was published on 4/27/26.  It is well worth reading first if you have not already done so--it gives some background on symbolism which I will not repeat here. 

I claim no credit for any of the material in this post. All I did was compile the research on the occult into a terse and reader-friendly installment on this blog. The material comes from many online and print resources.  I hope you find it useful. Please comment and let me know if you got something out of it.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

"Protective" Charms and Amulets

These charms locate protection in objects rather than God's care. Unlike blessed sacramentals (e.g., scapulars, Miraculous Medal, etc.) which derive their efficacy from God through the blessing of the Church, these objects are considered powerful per se.

Hamsa

Meaning: A hand raised to stop the darkness. This open-palm symbol is a gesture of forbidding—a spiritual “Stop” sign against the invisible threat of the “Evil Eye.” It appeals to the deep human fear of envy, offering a tangible shield to clutch when the world feels predatory. It promises that a metal charm can do what prayer supposedly cannot: physically block a curse.

Origin: Very ancient, originating in the Mediterranean and North African regions. Later named for Fatima (daughter of the false prophet Mohammed) or Miriam (sister of Moses), the symbol is prominent throughout the Middle East and holds significance for both Moslems and Jews.

Uses Today: Worn as jewelry, hung in homes, shops, hotels, and taxis. Also adopted by peace activists as a social identifier emphasizing common beliefs between different religions.

Why it should not be used: The Hamsa promises visible, tangible protection from unseen threats, appealing to those who want something to hold onto when fear grips them. It claims to be "powerful" of itself and is seeped in occult ideas of "protection" apart from God, Who alone can offer true protection. 

The Evil Eye

Meaning: A mirror for malice. This unblinking blue eye is designed to stare down the curse of envy. It operates on the principle of “like cures like”—fighting the hostile gaze of a stranger with a permanent, watchful eye of glass. It is a talisman of paranoia, worn by those who feel constantly watched and want a "spiritual bodyguard" they can wear on a bracelet.

Origin: Rooted in antiquity, with references in Babylonian texts dating back approximately 3,000 years before Christ. The modern Evil Eye (aka "Nazar amulet") originated in Turkey and fits within a broader ancient Mediterranean and Middle Eastern tradition.

Uses Today: Commonly found in tourist shops as keychains, bracelets, baby accessories, and fashion motifs. Traditionally hung in windows or doorways to ward off undesirable influences.

Why it should not be used: The Evil Eye charm appeals to those anxious about unseen threats and malicious gazes, promising visible protection from its own occult power against invisible forces. It is pagan in origin and used by occultists.  

Crystals and Gemstones

Meaning: "Spiritual energy" on demand. This worldview treats the spiritual realm like a vending machine where specific stones store and emit energies for various purposes. Need sobriety? Buy Amethyst. Need vision? Buy Lapis Lazuli. It promises that we can “program” creation to serve our will, using the right rock to dispense the right vibe whenever we want it.

Origin: Ancient reverence for minerals as eternal and incorruptible. The Hebrew High Priest’s breastplate featured twelve stones which God ordained to represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Exodus 28). However, later historians like Josephus linked these stones to the Zodiac and months, a connection that mystics and Rosicrucians later seized upon to build their esoteric and evil systems.

Uses Today: Used in modern Wicca (witchcraft) for charging, grids, chakra alignment, ritual baths, pagan altars, and cleansing rites. Crystal balls serve as divination tools for "clairvoyants." Worn as talismans and identity badges signaling New Age/occult affiliation. There can be legitimate uses, e.g., a geologist or someone interested in geology who likes to study them or keep a collection for esthetic purposes totally divorced from anything occult. 

Why it should not be used: Crystals appeal to those wanting programmable spiritual power; stones you can charge, cleanse, and control for healing and "energy." Unless used for a specific non-occult purpose, you are giving witness and credence to the belief in "vital energy," and a heretical pantheistic worldview that almost all in the occult have adopted.

Esoteric Transformation and Nature Symbols

These symbols promise transformation through natural cycles or self-realization, independent of, and in opposition to the One True God of Catholicism. 

The Ouroboros

Meaning: The devouring circle. A snake eating its own tail is the perfect image of a closed system. It represents a universe with no Creator and no Savior; only endless recycling of the same matter and energy. It is self-cannibalism masquerading as eternal life, symbolizing the “unity of opposites” where

destruction feeds creation.

Origin: Its earliest known appearances are from 14th-century BC Egyptian tombs; it was later adopted by Greek philosophers and became a prominent symbol in Gnosticism, where it represented eternity and the soul of the world, and in alchemy, where it symbolized the unity of opposites and the closed, self-

sustaining, cyclical process of destruction and re-creation necessary for transformation.

Uses Today: Common in esoteric art, tattoos, and alchemical imagery, it represents beliefs in reincarnation, pantheism, and endless renewal without divine intervention.

Why it should not be used: The Ouroboros denies a Creator, Savior, and a final purpose, trapping existence in endless self-renewal. It is Gnostic/pagan in origin, and displays belief in the false, pagan, and heretical idea of reincarnation. 

The Infinity Symbol (Lemniscate)

Meaning: The soul unbound. In the occult, this isn’t just math; it is a claim to the divine attribute of limitlessness. It asserts that the human soul is eternal, uncreated, and sovereign—a fluid figure-eight representing a closed loop of “perfection” where all opposites (male/female, dark/light) are balanced within the self. It is the visual equivalent of the serpent’s lie: “You will not surely die.”

Origin: Introduced as a mathematical device in 1655 by John Wallis, though later esoteric groups adopted it to represent the “hermetic seal” of the universe. It appears in the Tarot (above the Magician’s head) to symbolize infinite potential and the power of the human will to unite heaven and earth.

Uses Today: Popular in jewelry and tattoos as an esoteric identity marker signifying limitlessness or continuity. Appears in occult systems like the Tarot Cards and forms the base of the Leviathan Cross (the evil "Crux Satana").

Why it should not be used: The infinity symbol in occult contexts declares, “I am infinite, limitless, self-existing”—the soul as eternal and divine in itself. It is a blasphemy against Almighty God. 

Conclusion

As I wrote in my first two posts on this topic:

Symbols have deep meaning and are important. They link things tangible to realities that are intangible. We can't see love, but when a man brings red roses to his wife, love is symbolized. The ultimate symbol of love is the crucifix, God died so we may live forever. Those are wonderful symbols. However, when the symbol is linked to intangible evils by symbolizing heresies, immoralities and calling upon (evil) spirits for "protection" they become an invitation (wittingly or not) for evil to enter your life. Invite evil in and it will take you up on your request.  

The Seven Last Words Of Jesus

 

To My Readers: This week, my guest poster John Gregory, does a masterful job in showing the theological import to be drawn from the last statements of Our Lord Jesus Christ as He was dying on the Cross. A very interesting read! Feel free to comment as usual. If you have any comments or questions for me, I will respond as always, but it may take me a bit longer to do so this week.

God bless you all, my dear readers---Introibo

The Seven Last Words Of Jesus

By John Gregory

“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Luke 23: 34  

Jesus, as soon as He had been crucified, prayed to His Father for the Jews and the soldiers who were crucifying Him, saying, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. It is clear from Luke that this occurred before His garments were divided.  This the first of the seven memorable words which Christ spoke upon the cross; after so many and such great sorrows, insults, mockeries, as though forgetting them, concerned only about the salvation of His torturers, He shoots up to heaven this fiery word from a breast that is a furnace glowing with charity, praying for their forgiveness. And He was heard for His reverence (cf. Hebrews 5: 7) For many of them repented on Pentecost at Peter’s preaching and were converted to Christ (Acts 2). Christ Himself taught us to pray for our persecutors, to do good to those who do us wrong, and to overcome evil with good.  Saint Stephen imitated His example, when he was being stoned, and prayed upon his knees (Acts 7: 59): Lord, lay not this sin to their charge.  And when he had said this, like a swan uttering its swan song, he fell asleep in the Lord.  

For they know not what they do.  They know not that I am Christ, the Son of God, for if they knew they would not dare to commit this monstrous sacrilege, the murder of God.  They know not that I am the Savior of the world and their Redeemer, know not that I am dying for their salvation.   “So does the gentleness and tenderness of Christ triumph over the impiousness and malice of the Jews,” says Saint Cyprian. 

The flint is the hieroglyphic [emblem] of love for one’s enemies, and has this motto, “Fire comes from flint, but not without a blow.” Flint is a hard stone, from which sparks are struck.  It is so-called in Latin (silex) either because fire “leaps” (saliat) from it, or else because it “silently” contains fire within it, which is awakened by rubbing it. Therefore, flint is popularly called a “living stone,” as distinguished from other stones, which are said to be “dead.”  The flint here is Christ, who is the cornerstone.  For Christ poured forth on the cross the latent fire of His Godhead and His boundless charity, but yet not without a blow, for it was while struck by His persecutors that He prayed for them so ardently.  He Himself had said before, I am come to cast fire on the earth, And what will I, but that it be kindled? (Luke 12: 49) Let the Christian, then, imitate Christ, and make himself a flint, which is full of fire itself, and ignites others; and when he is wrongfully struck by iron and steel, let him shoot forth sparks of divine love, as Christ did.   

Amen I say to thee, this day thou shalt be with me in paradise. Luke 23: 43  

That is, in a place of pleasure where thou mayest be in beatitude and enjoy the beatific vision of God.  Meaning: Today I will make thee forever happy; today I will make thee a king reigning in the kingdom of glory with Me.  This is what Saint Cyril of Jerusalem seems to mean, as well as Saint Chrysostom, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, and Saint Augustine, who explains in paradise to mean in heaven, that is, in celestial beatitude.  It is certain that Christ on the day on which He died, did not go up to heaven with the thief, but went down into the limbo of the fathers (hence Saint Augustine and Maldonatus take paradise here to mean Abraham’s bosom), and there imparted to them the vison of His divinity and thus made them blest, and, therefore, changed the order of things; for He, then, made limbo to be paradise, and the lower parts the upper, so that hell should be heaven.  For where Christ is, there is paradise; where the vison and beatitude of God is, there is heaven.   

Now Euthymius and other Greeks deny that the souls of the saints see God and are blessed before the day of judgment, and by paradise these authors understand an earthly place, to which Henock was carried; but this cannot be true.  For it is of the faith that Christ shortly after His death went down to the netherworld, that is, the limbo of the fathers, but He did not go into any earthly paradise.  Besides, it is uncertain whether, after the Deluge, there be any earthly paradise remaining.  But supposing that there be such, it is the happy and joyful habitation, not of souls, but of bodies only.  Hence it is plain from this passage, against the Greeks, and against Calvin and the other innovators, that the souls of the saints, when thoroughly purged from sin, do not sleep till the day of judgment, but immediately behold God, and are beatified by that vision of Him.   

Morally, note here the liberality of Christ, who exceeds our prayers and vows.  The thief had asked Christ only to remember him when He came into His kingdom and Christ promised him the kingdom on that same day, that he might reign in it with Him as a king.  “This day,” says Eusebius of Emissa, “as if He would say, O my faithful companion and one only witness of so great a triumph, dost thou think that I need to be so earnestly entreated to remember thee?  This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.” And further on, “Christ, when placed upon the gibbet as an arbiter between the two condemned, rejected him who denied, and received the one who confessed; on the latter He bestows a kingdom, the former He consigns to hell. Let us then believe that He will judge in majesty, whom we see exercising judgment already on the cross.”  This is that most sweet answer of Christ to the thief, which Saint Fulgentius calls “the testament of Christ, written with the pen of the cross.”  

Lastly, tradition says that the name of this blessed thief was Dismas, for some chapels are found which were built in the name of this Saint Dismas, the Robber.  In the Martyrology he is enrolled in the “Catalogue of the Saints” at the 25th day of March, for on that day he seems to have suffered, and consequently Christ on the same day.  For in it we read, “At Jerusalem, the commena priorioration (previous comments) of the holy thief who upon the cross confessed Christ and merited to hear from Him: This day shalt thou be with Me in paradise.”   

Women, behold thy son. And to John, Behold thy Mother. (John 19: 26-27)  

Christ pierced his mother’s heart with the dart both of love and sorrow, for He meant: As thou seest, Mother, I am dying on the cross.  From now on I shall not be able to be with thee, to attend to thee, to provide for thee, and assist thee as I have hitherto done.  In my place, I assign John to be thy son; that is, a man in the place of God, a disciple for a master, and adopted son instead of thine own by nature; in order that he, as a virgin, and most beloved by thee as the Virgin Mother of God, may bestow on thee all the solace, and all the devotion, which both thy dignity and thy advancing age demand, and which the zeal and charity of John promises and assures to thee. Christ therefore teaches here that children should care for their parents even to the last, says Theophylact, citing Saint Chrysostom.  

 

Listen to Saint Augustine: “Here is a passage of moral teaching.  By His example our good teacher instructed His own, that pious children should take care of their parents; as if that wood on which His limbs were fastened when He was dying, were also the chair of the teacher.” For as Cyril says, “We ought to learn from Him, and through Him, first of all, that parents must not be neglected, even when intolerable sufferings are hanging over us.” But marvel, with Theophylact, at “how, upon the cross, He does everything calmly; caring for His mother, fulfilling prophecies, opening paradise to the thief; whereas before He was crucified, He labored, sweated, and was anxious.” For as Euthymius says, “in the one case the weakness of nature was seen, in the other His great power of endurance.”  Christ commends His mother to John, whom at the same time He put in His own place as her son, so that thus He might both bestow such a son upon His mother and also entrust such a mother to John. Saint Cyprian, or whoever is the author of the Treatise on the Passion of Christ, gives the reasons why he did this. First, to provide for His mother, who was now growing old, the care and kind offices of a son.  As if He said, “I am thy son, O Mother, and because I am dying.  I cannot care for thee anymore; therefore I consign and hand thee over to John”  

Secondly, that He might commend a Virgin to a virgin. “The pure is entrusted to the pure,” says Theophylact.  Thus Nonnus paraphrases it: “He said, Woman, O thou loving Mother of virginity, behold thy virgin son; and on the other hand He said to His disciple, O thou lover of virginity, behold a Virgin who is thy parent, without giving thee birth.” And Saint Ambrose says, “But with whom should the Virgin dwell, rather than with him, whom she knew to be the heir of her Son, and the guardian of her chastity?”  And in this matter Jesus, as a Son anxious about His mother’s purity, wished that her continuance in this state of maternal virginity should be fully confirmed.  As Saint Ambrose writes, “that no one should sully her with the reproach that her purity had been defiled.”  

Thirdly, to show that Joseph was not His father, He set him aside and put John in his place.  Hear the same [Pseudo]-Cyprian: “Thou carefully providest for her who was Blessed among women, the protection of an Apostle, and Thou deliverest the care of the Virgin to a virgin disciple, in order that Joseph might be no longer burdened with the charge of so great a mystery, but that John should bear it.  For reason now demanded that he should no longer be regarded as her husband, nor be counted the father of Christ, who had hitherto held the place of father and husband.”  He then meets a tacit objection. “Joseph would have had good reason to object to this arrangement of Christ, when Mary was commended to someone else, had he regarded himself as a husband in the flesh.  But because the mystery of that union was spiritual, Joseph calmly allowed John to be preferred to himself in this office, for he judged him to be more worthy than himself, and more especially because the Master’s choice had so ordered it.”  

Note that this author (whether it was Cyprian or someone else) is of the opinion that this Joseph lived to see Christ’s passion.  Most commentators think otherwise, and with greater probability.  For no mention whatever is made of him; indeed, Christ seems to have commended His mother to the care of John precisely because Joseph had died. For had he been alive, Christ would certainly have committed His mother, Joseph’s dearest spouse, to his care, as He had done at His incarnation and nativity, since He had experience of his fidelity and diligence during the flight into Egypt and at other times.   

The fourth reason why Christ commended His mother to John, of all the Apostles, was that John alone, with HIs mother, stood by Him fearlessly and steadfastly at His crucifixion, even unto His death, amidst all the insolence and reviling of the Jews. He therefore merited to be adopted by Jesus as His brother, and to replace Him as the son of the Virgin Mother.  Moreover, Christ commended, in the person of John, the rest of the Apostles, indeed, all the faithful, to His mother, especially those who are chaste and virgins, and closely follow Christ upon His Cross, and thus become most beloved friends and intimates of Christ and His mother, just as Saint John was, who accordingly was called by [Pseudo]-Cyprian “Christ’s chamberlain." 

Whom he loved. To whom He showed greater external signs of love, because he was younger than the other Apostles, more modest and chaste, being a virgin, and loving Jesus more than did the rest.  Therefore, when the others fled, he alone stood by the cross with the Mother of Christ, as I noted earlier.  

Woman, behold thy son. Christ calls her woman, not mother, lest by calling her mother He inflict greater sorrow upon her soul. “Lest,” as the Baptist of Nantua poetically puts it, “that loved name should wound the mother’s heart.” Secondly, so as not to rouse against her the scribes and Pharisees who were present.  Thirdly, to show that He had put off all human affections towards His parents.  Fourthly, because, advancing towards death and heaven, He renounced all human relationships of this life, and wished to teach that they should be renounced.    

Fifthly, to arouse His mother’s courage and strength of mind to bear all these things with fortitude, and to remind her of that resolute woman, about whom Solomon had foretold, Who shall find a valiant woman? (Proverbs 31: 10). For the Blessed Virgin suffered for a longer time than Christ.  His suffering ceased at His death, while the suffering and compassion of the Blessed Virgin did not cease, but increased.  For she received the dead body of Christ when it was taken down from the cross, thus reviving her grief; and then for the three days He lay in the tomb, His sufferings on the cross, which she had witnessed close at hand, remained vividly impressed on her imagination, and tormented it, till Christ rose again, and removed them all by the consolations and glory of His appearing.  Again, the Blessed Virgin was left behind by Christ, in order to be the mother of the Apostles and the faithful, to gather the fallen, to comfort the afflicted, to support the stumbling, to advise the doubtful and the anxious, and to guide, instruct and inspire them in everything.   

Hence, she immediately gathered the Apostles who had dispersed when Christ was captured.  She uplifted Peter, who was downcast on account of his denial of Christ, with the hope of forgiveness, and she assured all who were troubled by Christ’s death through her faith in the resurrection of Christ which would soon come to pass.  Then, when the leaders of the Jews imprisoned, scourged and killed the Apostles, she vividly experienced all these persecutions as though they were inflicted upon her, but she overcame them by her lofty spirit, and taught the Apostles by her word and example to overcome them.   

Christ, foreseeing all these things, said, Women, as if to say: O Mother, be henceforth that valiant and courageous woman, so that thou mayest be, in My place, the foundation, rock, and pillar of My Church, that thou mayest support it with thy strength and mayest drive away and scatter all the storms of temptations that rage against her by thine assistance, counsel and prayers, not only now, but in all centuries to come, until the end of the world.  That is why she is called in the Litanies and constantly invoked by the faithful and the entire Church as: “Comforter of the afflicted, Refuge of sinners, Health of the sick, Tower of David, Ark of the Covenant, Help of Christians, Morning Star, Gate of Heaven, Mother most admirable, Virgin of virgins, Queen of Apostles, of Martyrs, of Confessors, and of All Saints.” 

Listen to Saint Bernard.  “Let him cease to speak about thy mercy, O Blessed Virgin, if anyone should remember that thou have failed him when he called on thee in his necessities. . . . Who, therefore, can search out the length and breadth, the height and depth of thy mercy, O Blessed Lady?  For its length comes to the aid of all who call upon it, until the last day.  Its breadth shall fill the world, so that all the earth may be full of thy mercy also.  So too its height reaches that of the heavenly city, and its depth has obtained redemption for those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death.  For through thee heaven has been filled, the underworld emptied, the ruins of the heavenly Jerusalem have been restored.  To this summit of mercy, our misery has recourse with the utmost solicitude.”    

The same author writes: “(O Virgin Mary,) upon thy lips [i.e. intercession], depends the consolation of the afflicted, the redemption of captives, the liberation of the condemned, and lastly, the health of all the sons of Adam, of thy whole race.”  The same author writes: “To her (the Blessed Virgin), as though to an intermediary, to the ark of God, to the cause of things, to the transaction of the ages, all look: those who dwell in heaven, those in the underworld, our predecessors, and we ourselves today, and those who follow and our descendants’ offspring, and those who shall be born of them.  Those who are in heaven [look to her] that they may be restored: those in the underworld, that they may be snatched away; our predecessors, that the prophets might be proved faithful; those who came after, that they may be glorified.  Because of this all generations call thee blessed, O Mother of God, Lady and Mistress of the world, Queen of heaven.  For in thee the angels shall find happiness, the just—grace, and sinners—forgiveness eternally.  Rightly do the eyes of all creatures look to thee, because in thee, and through thee, and from thee, O kind hand of the Almighty, He has recreated whatever He created.”    

For as he says in his third sermon on the Missus est: “Within Blessed Mary the fullness of Divinity dwelt bodily, that is, theanthropos, (God-Man), as Saint Dionysius says, from whom proceeded theandric actions, that is, actions of the God-man, whereby He reconciled men to God.  The same author writes, “Hail, Mary, full of grace: because thou art pleasing [grata] to God and angels and men.  To men, by thy fruitfulness, to the angels by thy virginity, to God by thy humility.” Bernard writs in his Sermon on Blessed Mary: “Eve was the thorn, which pricked even her own husband unto death, and imposed upon her posterity the sting of sin; Mary was the rose.  In wounding, Eve was the thorn; Mary was the rose by soothing the passions of all.  Eve was the thorn in inflicting death upon all; Mary was the rose by restoring to all a salutary lot.”  

Verse 27. After that, he saith to the disciple: Behold thy mother.  Meaning Love her, attend to her, help her, as thy mother.  And, on the other hand, have recourse to her, as thy mother in every difficulty, temptation, persecution, and affliction.  She will cherish thee with motherly affection, will foster, console and protect thee, and ask help for thee from her Son.  Moreover, these words of Christ are not mere ineffectual spoken words, like those of men: but as the words of God, they are real and efficacious and bring about that which they declare.  And accordingly, they impressed Saint John a filial affection and spirit towards the Blessed Virgin, as though she were his mother.  Theophylact exclaims, “How wonderful! How doth He honor His disciple, in making him His brother?  How good is it (to stand by the cross), and to abide close to Christ in His sufferings!”  And Chrysostom: “What honor does He confer on His disciple! For when He was about to depart, He left the care of His mother to His disciple.  For when it was natural for her to sorrow as His mother, and to seek protection, He most fitly commends her to His beloved disciple, to whom He says, Behold thy mother! That so they might be bound together in love.” 

Behold thy mother.  And the mother also of thy fellow-Apostles, and of the other faithful, who are represented here in the person of John.  Accordingly, all the faithful should fly to her with full confidence and love, as Saint Bernard teaches, whose words I have already cited.  She is the true Eve of the faithful, i.e., the mother of the living.  Thus all who are wise and the saints of every age have had recourse to her.  

Listen to Saint Augustine: “Behold thy mother.  Take care of her, He says, I commend her to thee, take her as thy mother.  When He said these few words, these two beloved ones ceased not to shed tears; both of these martyrs were silent and could not speak for excessive grief; these two virgins heard Christ speaking, and saw Him gradually dying: they wept bitterly, who sorrowed bitterly, for the sword of Christ’s sorrow pierced through both their hearts.”  

And (i.e., therefore, namely because Jesus had ordered it) from that hour, the disciple took her to his own.  So it should be read with the Greek and Latin codices (in sua); the Syriac and Arabic versions have to himself.  Some read in suam, into his own house.  Hence Nonnus paraphrases: “The disciple had within his house, as his blessed companion, her who was a Virgin in giving birth.”  For children usually welcome elderly parents into their home and feed them; and those whom we take into our care, we take into our house also.  Listen to Bede’s interpretation: Another reading has in suam, meaning “unto (as) his mother”, as some maintain; but more fittingly, it is implied, “into his care” [in suam curam].  As Saint Augustine says, “He took her to his own, not into his own lands, which he owned as property, but into those kind offices, which he undertook to dispense.”  Therefore all of these interpretations come to the same thing.  Hence Saint John, upon departing for Ephesus, took the Blessed Virgin there with him.  Hence the Council of Ephesus, in chapter 26 of the Synodical Epistle, says that the Blessed Virgin and Saint John for a time lived in the city of Ephesus.  

This, then, was Christ’s last will and testament, of which Saint John was the executor.  “He executed His testament on the cross,” says Saint Ambrose, “and John witnessed to it, a fitting witness for so great a testator.”  

Gather from this also that Joseph, the spouse of the Virgin, had already died.  As Saint Ambrose says, “The wife would not be divorced from her husband, but she who veiled the mystery under the guise of marriage, now, when this mystery was finished, no longer had need of wedlock.”  And Epiphanius speaks thus: “Now the gospel says, And from that day he took her to his own,” meaning into his own house.  “But if she had a husband, or a home or children of her own, she would have retired to them, and not to a stranger.   See then how poor the Blessed Virgin was, and how devoted to poverty.  

Eli, Eli, lamma sabacthani?  My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?  

(Matthew 27: 46; Mark 15: 34)  

Christ quotes Psalm 21: 1, which in Hebrew reads azabtani; but because the Jews, in returning from Babylon, changed their Hebrew language and introduced Syriac, Christ instead of the Hebrew azabtani, after the Syriac manner of His people said Sabacthani. The modern Syriac versions have elmonosbactoni. Thus it is clear that with the passage of time the Syriac language has changed appreciably, just as Latin, Italian, French, German, and other languages have changed.  

Moreover Christ, continually prayed on the cross and offered Himself wholly to God as a victim for the salvation of mankind.  But as His death was drawing near, He recited Psalm 21, as mentioned, which speaks throughout of Christ’s passion, to show that He was the very person treated in that psalm, namely the Messias, so that the scribes and Jews might investigate and learn that the reason why He refused to descend from the cross or be delivered was that He had to die on the cross by the Father’s decree for the salvation of men.  For in that psalm David foretold that this would happen.  

Calvin says impiously, therefore that these were the words of Christ in despair, that He was obliged to experience the full wrath of God which our sins deserve, and consequently the sufferings of the damned, of which despair is one.  But this blasphemy refutes itself. For if Christ despaired on the cross, then he sinned most grievously.  He, therefore, did not satisfy, but rather inflamed, the wrath of God.  And how can it be said that Christ ever despaired, when He said shortly afterwards as He died, Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit, as Luke 23: 46 relates.  

Christ, therefore, does not cry out as being forsaken by the Godhead and hypostatic union of the Word, nor even by the grace and friendship of God, but only because the Father did not rescue Him from instant death, nor soothe or diminish by any consolation His cruel sufferings in the flesh and the inferior part of the soul, but permitted Him to endure unmitigated sorrows and torments.  And all this was to show how bitter this death on the cross was to Him, this wrenching of the soul from the body by such great pains, and such a violent separation of parts so intimately united, as He prayed in the garden while agonizing and sweating blood: Father, if it be possible, let this chalice pass from me.  Thus Saint Jerome, Saint Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius and other fathers; nor do Saint Hilary and Saint Ambrose mean anything else in saying, “The man cried aloud when dying at being separated from the Godhead.” For they mean not a separation of essence and of the hypostatical union, but of support, help, and consolation.   

For the Faith teaches us that at Christ’s death His soul was separated from His body, yet His Divinity remained as before, hypostatically united to both His soul and His body.  Besides this, Christ complained here of His desertion, because the Godhead helped Him in no other way but by sustaining Him in His torments, and by prolonging His life for additional, more horrible sufferings, indeed by increasing Christ’s pain at seeing Himself, though in union with the Godhead, enduring such atrocious indignities.  Thus Laurentius Justiniani.   

Symbolically, first, Christ here asks the reason why He was thus forsaken by the Father on the cross. ”My Father, what have I done that I should die on this cross?  What sin, what evildoing have I committed?  I am most innocent, the holy of holies.”  Then the reply is given in Psalm 21: 2.  Christ answers His own question.  Far from my salvation are the words of my sins, meaning thereby, “The sins of men, which the Father hath put on Me to be loosed and expiated, these are depriving Me of health and life, and bring Me to the death of the cross.”   

Second, some authors cited by Theophylact think that Christ here is speaking not of His own desertion and reprobation, but of that of His people, the Jews.  As if to say, “Why, O Father, dost Thou desert Me, that is, My nation, My people, the Jews, who are related to Me according to the flesh, and disown them?”  

Third, Origen thinks Christ is complaining of the small number of those who will be saved, and the multitude of those who will be damned, in whom the fruit of His passion and death comes to nought.  As though He said: “Why, O Lord, forsakest Thou Me, that is, My kinsmen in the flesh, for whom I am dying?  Why savest Thou a few of them and rejectest the many?  For in so doing Thou forsakest Me; for Thou makest the fruit of My suffering a slight, abandoned and wretched thing.”  

Tropologically, Cyprian thinks that Christ spoke thus in order that we should inquire into the reasons why the Father abandoned Him.  “You, Lord,” he says, “are not deliberating about death, nor arguing about reproaches; but You want it to be understood what the cause of death is, and what is the gain, so that by a recognition of both these things, sin and grace might appear.  And how much weight each thing has, let the effect of these things prove, since there could be no remedy for the original death except in Christ’s death, nor could any offering reconcile the banished and the damned to God, except the singular Sacrifice of this Blood.” And after a few lines: “Our Lord was forsaken that we should not be forsaken; that we should be set free from our sins and eternal death; He was abandoned to manifest His love to us; to display to us His righteousness and compassion; to draw our love towards Him; lastly, to set before us an example of patience.  The way to heaven is open, but it is arduous and difficult.  He wished to precede us with His wondrous example, that the way might not terrify us, but that the stupendous example of God in suffering might urge us on,” so that in whatever tribulation, we might say with Paul (Romans 8: 35), confidently and exultantly, who shall  separate us from the love of Christ? . . .In all these things we overcome, because of him that hath loved us.  

This, then, was Christ’s fourth word on the cross, consolation to all who are desolate and afflicted.  He consoled in this way Saint Peter, martyr of the Order of Saint Dominic.  He was visited by Saint Cecilia, Saint Agnes and Saint Catherine, and while he spoke with them in his cell, he was heard by passers-by and accused of bringing women into his cell; thus he was falsely accused and condemned to a long, hard penance. Kneeling before the crucifix, the saint complained to Christ, saying, “Lord, Thou knowest my innocence; why then doest Thou say nothing when I keep silence; why dost Thou not defend me, abandoning me so long in this infamy?” Christ replied, “And I, O Peter? What wrong had I done to be crucified for thee on this cross? Learn from Me to practice patience in whatever may befall you, for all thy sufferings cannot equal Mine.”  Hearing this, the saint was so strengthened and cheered, that he wished to endure still further suffering; indeed, he would not have exchanged his ignominious trials for the scepters and crowns of kings.  Therefore, Christ at length established his innocence, and turned all his disgrace into glory.  

I thirst. (John 19: 28)  

Afterwards, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, said: I thirst.  Afterwards, that is, after about three hours.  For He commended His mother to John before the darkness, at the beginning of the crucifixion; but at the end, shortly before He died, He said, I thirst, so that the Scripture might be fulfilled, And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink (Psalm 68: 22).  As if to say: So that I might suffer this further torment of being offered the vinegar, I cry out that I thirst.  As Saint Augustine says, “You have not yet done this.  Give Me that which you are yourselves,” that is, full of acidity and bitterness; give Me vinegar, therefore, and not wine.  

Christ thirsted, because He had neither eaten nor drunk anything since His supper the night before; moreover, He had poured forth all the moisture and blood in His body, by His scourging and crucifixion; also because His most bitter pains also caused Him great thirst.  For as Cyril remarks, “Sorrows stir up the natural heat within, dry up moisture as its deepest source, and burn the entrails of the sorrowful one with fiery heat.”    

Hence, the jaws are dried up and parched with thirst.  At that moment, then, the words of the Psalmist (21: 16) were fulfilled in Christ: My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue hath cleaved to my jaws.  The Chancellor of Louvain, when he was dying forty years ago, said in my presence, that he never fully understood those words, as he did from experience, when he was himself suffering from a similar dryness and thirst, and from it reckoned how great the thirst and dryness of Christ had been.  Mystically, Christ thirsted for the salvation of souls.  See Bellarmine on The Seven Words of Christ on the Cross.  “God thirsteth to be thirsted for,” says Nazianzen, in order that we may insatiably love and desire Him, and say with the Psalmist, My soul hath thirsted after the strong living God; when shall I come and appear before the face of God?” (Psalm 41: 3).  

It is consummated. (John 19: 30)  

Jesus therefore, when he had taken the vinegar, said: It is consummated.  And bowing his head, he gave up the ghost.  All the sufferings, and all the mysteries are consummated, which the Father decreed from all eternity that I should suffer and carry out, which He ordered Me to suffer and carry out from My very birth, and which He willed, moreover, that the prophets should foretell concerning Me.  There remains only the final issue of death, so that I may complete My course of suffering, and by My death expiate the penalty of death, which Adam incurred by sin, and thus restore mankind to life.  I therefore embrace death, and commend My spirit into the hands of My Father.  

Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit. (Luke 23: 46)  

The Arabic has I place; Tertulliam has depono, i.e., I deposit for safekeeping”; for this is the meaning of paratithemi whence paratheke, meaning “a deposit”. The Hebrew word hiphkid has the same meaning, which the Vulgate renders as commendo, meaning as a deposit, that you might keep it safe for me, and return it at the proper time.  Saint Athanasius, toward the beginning of his book on the Human Nature of Christ, remarks, “When Christ said on the cross, Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit, He deposits all men with the Father in His spirit and commends them to Him, to be restored to life, by Christ Himself and through Him; for we are members, and those many members are one body, which is the Church.  He commends, therefore, all who are in Him to God.”  Christ, therefore, according to Saint Athanasius, calls men His soul and spirit.  What then ought we not to do to win and save souls, that we may keep for Christ, as it were, His soul and spirit?  Thus, Saint Paul in his Epistle to Philemon calls Onesimus, his “bowels” (viscera).  

“He gave His soul into the hands of His Father,” says Saint Cyril, that by this and through this, as a beginning, we might have certain hope of this, firmly believing that we shall be in the hands of God after our death.”  So too Victor Antiochus on Mark, “This commendation of Christ turned out for the good of our souls, which, when freed from the bodies previously inhabited by them, He gave by these words, as a kind of deposit, into the hands of the living God.”  And Euthymius: “The Lord did this for us, so that the souls of the just would not henceforth go down into hell, but should rather ascend to God.”  Christ is citing Psalm 30: 6, in which David, afflicted and in danger of death, speaks as much in his own person as in that of Christ and says, Into Thy hands I commend my spirit.  Hence the Church uses the same psalm and verse every day, and sings it during Compline at night, to teach us, when we go to sleep, to commend our souls to God, because at night we run many risks of sudden death from catarrh, suffocation, apoplexy, etc.  The dying use the same verse, as did Saint Nicholas, Saint Louis of France, and Saint Basil, and this in the presence of the angels who were bringing him away, as Saint Gregory Nazianzen testifies.    

Saint Stephen also cried, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.  By this psalm verse we testify: 1. That at our birth we received our souls, not from our father and mother, but from God alone; and that we, therefore, give Him back the same, as His own creatures. 2. That we believe that the soul does not perish at death, but survives and is immortal, and returns to God who created it and will judge it.  3. That we believe in the resurrection of the flesh.  For in death we commend our souls to God that He may keep them, as a deposit, and restore them again at the resurrection to our bodies.  4. That in our final and bitter struggle (in agone) which we undergo with the devil, we implore the assistance of God at death, so that by commending our souls to Him, we may vanquish and triumph over the devil.  Hence it is the opinion of many that each of us has his own devil as an adversary, who appears to the dying in some terrible form, and tempts them to despair and to other sins, as he appeared to Saint Martha and others, but not to all.  Saint Ephrem seems to think this in his sermon on those who sleep in Christ; likewise, Saint Chrysostom and others whom our own Lorinus cites at Ecclesiastes 8: 8.  

Many think the same of Christ.  Hence Eusebius understands Christ’s words in Psalm 21: 13, Fat bulls have besieged me, to refer to the devils whom Christ saw on the cross, gaping and mocking Him as a criminal and wicked, and insulting Him for His crucifixion and impending death.  Habacuc 3: 5 seems to support this idea; The devil shall go forth before his feet. Also, what Christ says in John 14: 30, The prince of this world cometh, and in me he hath not anything. Christ lays down His spirit, therefore, in the hands of God, certain that no one can snatch it from them.  For God is a most faithful and mighty protector (depositarius). So, Saint Jerome on Psalm 30: 6, Into Thy hands I commend my spirit. “That is,” he says, “into Thy power I commend my soul.  This example the Church received from Christ.  Saint Stephen, too, Followed it. The saints also pray this when they depart from the body, as it says (in 1 Peter 4: 19) [They] commend their souls in good deeds to the faithful Creator. Our Lord said this, while nailed to the cross: that He would commend His spirit into the Father’s hands, to receive it again when the Father raised Him.”  

Symbolically, Didymus in his Catena on Psalm 30 says that the spirit is three-fold: 1. Our thoughts. 2. Our soul. 3. Our conscience.  These three we ought to commend to God.  

And saying this, he gave up the ghost.  Syriac, He said this, and ended (His life, that is). Arabic, And when he had said this, he gave up his spirit (into the Father’s hands, as He had said). This, therefore, was a certain sign that He was the Son of God the Father, who was called upon by Him, and that the Father heard the cry of the Son and received His soul.  For when He had said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit, then, at last, He allowed death to come to Him, says Euthymius, commenting on chapter 27 of Matthew, inasmuch as He knew with certainty that the Father would keep securely His spirit, which He placed in His hands as a deposit, and would give it back to Him in the resurrection on the third day.  Assured in this hope, glad and ready, He gave up His spirit to the Father. (All the above is taken from the Lapide commentary)  

One of the many things we can learn from the last three hours of Our Lord’s life is to use our words sparingly and efficaciously.  Sparingly, because the sins of the tongue are frequent and are oftentimes mortally sinful.  Saint James teaches us that the tongue “defileth the whole body, and inflameth the wheel of our nativity, being set on fire by hell”.  Our Lord warns us that we will have to render an account for every idle word.  Every, idle, word! How often do we speak scandalous nonsense, gossip, detraction as being in the know about others, and their faults, and the reason for their faults!  What percentage of our words are not something negative about someone else?  How often do we speak negatively about priests?  Too ridged.  Too lenient. Causing needless division amongst the laity, as we opine expertly on the “rashness, “stubbornness” and “disobedience” of current and past priests who know far more about doctrine, canon law, and the liturgy than we do.  This helps no one.  Not the lay people who become embittered about priests they heretofore had no issue with.  Not the priests, who are put in repeated positions of rolling their eyes and thinking negatively about laypeople who persistently parent their Fathers by putting them in their place.  

Conclusion 

Let Bishop Pivarunas, Bishop Sanborn and Father Jenkins, discuss among themselves about which liturgy to use, the plausibility of the Thesis, and sacramental theology regarding the consecration of bishops.  For this speaks to the second part of what we learn from Our Lord’s last three hours, (the first being the use of our words sparingly) that is to use our words efficaciously  — i.e. — for the salvation of souls. The clergy have to render a strict account for souls, this includes those who tell souls where they can and cannot attend valid Masses.  

God will take care of them if they are culpable for their anomalies, they are already fully aware of the thoughts of the pontificating people. If the lay people must correct the clergy, let them do so humbly and present it as their opinion, which is what it is, no matter how sure they are of that opinion, and be quick to ask the Father to forgive them rather than judge them harshly, publicly and scandalously.  Let us stand by the cross with our priests, silently, prayerfully, charitably knowing they thirst for souls and often feel abandoned by man and God, putting forth so much effort with seemingly so little result.  Let us take our Lady as our own, knowing she would not blab all over the internet telling the clergy what is wrong with them, but at most would talk with them privately, humbly and respectfully, and would pray for them that they get the grace to think of God first, their sheep second, and themselves last.   

In essentials unity; in non-essentials, liberty, in all things, charity.  

Omnia pro Jesu per Mariam!