Lipa Apparitions: "Not Supernatural"

off topic Mike: Our Lady of Anguera Prophecies

Your thoughts from ousted priest from Opus Dei, Fr. JesusMaria. He has promoted Our Lady of Anguera. An eye opener of an apparition.

‘Pope’ Francis’ Consecration of Russia to Mary’s Immaculate Heart.

Mike, here is Fr. Kramer video i saw two years ago regarding Lipa.

Hang on a minute @LiveMike - Lipa was condemned back in 1951 - see my statement below - which was endorsed by Pope Pius XII. Archbishop Ramon Cabrara Arguelles had no right to overrule this, as made clear by Cardinal Muller, when he was Prefect of the CDF. As for him going to Garabandal, that was his choice, but as we have discussed before, Garabandal has never been condemned, but has never received ecclesiastical approval.
I don't think there is anything sinister behind this. The devotion to Our Lady of All Nations stemmed from the alleged seer Ida Peerdeman, who claimed to have received 56 visions of the 'Lady' from 1945 to 1959. Both in pre and post conciliar times, the devotion was never approved by the local Ordinaries or the Holy See, so this is not some kind of modernist post-conciliar plot. On 7 May 1956, Bishop Johannes Huibers, following a careful examination of the case, concerning the supposed apparitions and revelations of 'Our Lady of All Nations', declared that he 'found no evidence of the supernatural nature of the apparitions'. The Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith affirmed his position on 13 March 1957 and again on 24 May 1972 and 25 May 1974. It was only in the 1990's under Bishop Hendrick Bomers that some kind of quasi-approval of the devotion was given, but even he didn't go as far as saying that the events were of supernatural origin. Now the CDF has simply restored what has always been the position and there is no evidence of coercion of Bishop Hendriks. Local Bishop and Vatican Condemn Apparitions Of “Our Lady Of All Nations” One of the major problems is the apostolate of Dr Mark Miravalle, Vox Populi Mariae Mediatrici (VPMM) which campaigns for the Fifth Marian Dogma of solemnly defining Our Lady as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix and Advocate. A praiseworthy cause indeed. But unfortunately, Miravalle mixes up the works of Ida Peerdeman in with it, which puts the whole thing at risk and obviously makes the Vatican suspicious (he's also a massive promoter of Medjugorje). The work of VPMM should be done on painstaking theological research, not on the ramblings of a condemned seer, or Medjugorje. I have read some of Peerdeman's books and it astonishes me that any Catholic could take them seriously. I have no doubt that the Fifth Marian Dogma will be proclaimed one day, but it won't have anything to do with alleged apparitions.
Again, with Lipa, Philippines, the condemnations came well before Vatican II so cannot be presented as some kind of modernist Vatican plot. Initially declared as "non-supernatural" after an investigation by six Filipino bishops headed by Cardinal Rufino Santos on 11 April 1951, the case was reopened in 1991 by the local bishop and eventually declared by the then local Ordinary to be supernatural in character and worthy of belief. However, in May 2016, the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith under Cardinal Gerhard Muller overruled this decision. The local Ordinary until 2017, Archbishop Ramon Arguelles, himself disclosed the ruling by the CDF in an archdiocesan communiqué on May 31. In its decree, the Congregation stated that Pope Pius XII (hardly a modernist) had made a definitive confirmation in 1951 against the supposed apparitions in Lipa, declaring that they "were not of supernatural origin," which the local authority had no authority to overrule.

April 11, 1951
Although veneration of Our Lady Mediatrix of all Grace was permitted by Bishop Alfredo Verzosa y Florentin, the Philippine church hierarchy declared ruled negatively on the apparition stating that “there was no supernatural intervention in the reported extraordinary happenings including the shower of rose petals in Lipa.” The decision was signed by six bishops: Ganriel M.Reyes, then Archbishop of Manila; Cesar M. Guerrero, Bishop of San Fernando; Mariano Madriaga, Bishop of Lingayen; Juan C. Sison, Auxiliary Bishop of Nueva Segovia; Vicente P. Reyes, Auxiliary Bishop of Manila; and Rufino Santos, Apostolic Administrator of Lipa. The statement also contained the contentious phrase 'until final decision on the matter will come from the Holy See'.

Allegedly several of them confessed before they died that they too had been coerced, signing the negative "findings" only under threat of excommunication. (Source: LIPA June Keithley-Castro 1992) The Miracle Hunter : Marian Apparitions::Lipa

@James Manning We'll just have to wait and see, but I personally wouldn't panic. At first, I couldn't really see why the 1978 Norms, intended for the local bishops, needed updating. But of course, since then, we've had the global Medjugorje scandal and new alleged 'seers' coming every other day, from every country, and the sad spectacle of constant disobedience from Catholics, like the self appointed lay guardians of alleged apparitions and mystics 'Countdown to the Kingdom', Xavier Reyes-Ayral and other such groups and individuals, who sell their books and monetise their videos on YouTube etc. Hopefully this new document will be a clampdown on people like them.

The chances of Fatima being 'unapproved' is zero. Two of the Fatima seers are already canonised and the third (Sr Lucia) has been made Venerable and her Cause for Beatification is underway.
Have some more trust in Our Lady. She has more power in Her little finger than the whole of the Vatican put together. We are being tried, undoubtedly. Possibly for our own sins. But remember Her words to St Juan Diego at Guadalupe: "Listen, my beloved son, have no fear or anxiety in your heart. Do not try to do anything about your uncle’s grave illness or about any other trouble of yours. For am I not here with you, your mother? Are you not safe in the shadow of my protection? Am I not the source of your life and your happiness? Am I not holding you in my lap, wrapped in my arms? What else can you possibly need? Do not be upset or distressed . . . "

@English Catholic - Oh, I'm not worried. The only reason I keep up on these things is because I'm the Catholic in my social circle (my wife, too, but her faith is much more childlike than my overly-rational mind will allow), so I field a lot of questions. But we shouldn't kid ourselves that Rome isn't aware that many Marian apparitions, rightly or wrongly, can be used as an argument to undermine Francis. It just makes sense to go after them.

@chris griffin. ~ Our Lady of Fatima specifically mentions the sins of the world, which covers ALL breaking of the ten commandments; whether that's homicide, genocide, infanticide, or any other modern day aboration. She said to "Pray for the Conversion of Poor Sinners", ie: First Saturdays, Her Holy Rosary and Sacramentals. ~ Sacrifice - Reparation and Daily Duty! ~ "In the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph"! "Pray, Hope and don't worry" Saint Padre Pio. ~ VICTORY TO JESUS CHRIST OUR KING! ~

Not so! @chris griffin Our Lady of Garabandal makes an allusion to abortion.
On 14 November 1965, the day after the last appearance of Our Lady of Garabandal, Conchita González asked Albrecht Weber, "Can you imagine that you can kill the children in the mother without the mother also dying?" Weber answered spontaneously, "No! What makes you think that, Conchita?" Conchita replied, "The Blessed Virgin spoke about it and let me know that it would lead to the overflowing of the chalice (la copa)," Conchita spoke those words, shocked, without being able to imagine what it was all about. - Albrecht Weber, Garabandal: Der Zeigefinger Gottes, p. 185-186

@chris griffin Although Our Lady didn't specifically mention abortion at Guadalupe, Mexico (an ecclesiastically approved apparition), Her appearances brought a cessation to the culture of human sacrifice popular with the natives: Real St. Juan Diego: How Our Lady Saved Her Aztec Children and brought about the conversion of millions to the Faith in a relatively short time. Also, Our Lady of Guadalupe has been proclaimed as 'Patroness of the Unborn' - read the full story here: Why is Our Lady of Guadalupe patroness of the unborn? It is believed the image of Our Lady on the tilma, was while She was still carrying Our Lord in Her virginal womb. In any event, Our Lady, in her various approved apparitions, has never specifically mentioned homosexuality or paedophilia, or contraception or IVF, or you name whatever sin you want to - but we cannot assume all Marian apparitions are false or of no value, because she doesn't specifically mention particular types of sin. I totally agree with @credo - Our Lady's apparitions are to help us to keep the Commandments - ALL of them, including 'thou shalt not kill' (abortion or any other form of murder). Pope John Paul II called Fatima 'A Compendium of the Faith' - which certainly wouldn't exclude abortion. He also said that the message of Fatima 'imposed an obligation on the faithful'.

@Bazsó-Dombi Attila I'm sorry you've fallen for the 'fake Sr Lucia' theory. The Fatima Center recently devoted a whole Fatima Crusader magazine to this issue (not online). Issue 132, Spring 2024. I urge you to get a copy. The Fatima Center | Promoting the Full Message of Fatima In the meantime, below is a piece I wrote after a video on LifeSiteNews, which supported the ridiculous 'fake' Sr Lucia theory. Just to clarify, there is no doubt that the link @credo gave you are the genuine writings of Sister Lucia. She has written three books, under obedience:-

Fatima in Lucia's own words Volume I (also called Sister Lucia's Memoirs)
Fatima in Lucia's own words Volume 2 (this specifically deals with her family life, as a child)
Calls from the Message of Fatima

This is posted from another thread when I commented on this issue:-

Recently, Chojnowski had a video on Life Site News. That ‘Two Sister Lucy’s’ video is presented as stunning new evidence, it’s just the same old, same old, which Peter Chojnowski pushes on any platform he can. I’m sorry LifeSite News gave this an even larger platform. I fear Chojnowski will end up discrediting Fatima altogether. The only thing I learnt from the LifeSite video that I didn’t already know (or had possibly forgotten, but I have no memory of it) was that World Apostolate of Fatima member Carlos Evaristo allegedly went to the police and asked them to investigate, as he thought the Sister Lucia he saw was an imposter? This doesn’t add up. Even if it were true that Evaristo went to the police, why would the Portuguese police send him to an American civilian – Dr Zugibe – a man who first met Sr Lucia post 1967 (I think he met her in 2002), thus he would have met the supposed ‘fake’ Sr Lucia, having never met the ‘real’ one, so how and why would he be qualified in the eyes of the police to be able to tell the difference? And how on earth would the Portuguese police even know of this American layman’s existence?

Also, if Carlos Evaristo didn’t believe that this was Sister Lucia, why is he still in the World Apostolate of Fatima, still pushing the Vatican party line on the Consecration and 3rd Secret, still maintaining that the Sister Lucia who died in 2005 and is buried in the Basilica is the real one? I met Evaristo in Fatima in the late 1980’s. He had a large collection of relics and we were taken to see them. Also, I saw him again in 2017 working in Domus Pacis – the HQ of the WAF. I didn’t speak with him, but it was him. I went to the WAF chapel because it contains the actual statues of the Sacred Heart and the Immaculate Heart which were in the original chapel in Tuy when the Trinitarian vision took place to Sr Lucia in 1929, and I always like to say a prayer in front of them. I certainly wouldn’t use WAF for anything else. But why would Evaristo still be in the WAF HQ if he thought Sister Lucia was a fake?

Also, if Sr Lucia was ‘switched’, so many people – including all who had ever known or met her, the Pope, many Cardinals, bishops and priests, all the Carmelite nuns she lived with, her living relatives like Maria do Fetal Neves Rosa, and some childhood friends like Mrs Eugenia Pestana – would have had to be in on it, as to make it impossible. Someone, somewhere would have blown the whistle. No-one ever has. Even the Vatican hasn’t got that much power to silence everyone.

As for Sister Lucia’s accent, which Chojnowski alleged has changed – she lived in Coimbra and Spain for a long time, and accents do change. I have noticed that some people absorb accent changes like a sponge, while others don’t so much, if at all. I thought Chojnowski said they had pinpointed the accent of the ‘fake’ Sr Lucia to Viseu. But Viseu is not far from Coimbra Carmel. He made it sound as though it were right up the other end of the country. Bear in mind Sr Lucia had been in Coimbra Carmel since the 1940’s. Plenty of time for her to absorb any local accent, if indeed she did. I’d also be surprised if the Viseu accent would be noticeably different.

I don’t trust the photographic ‘evidence’ either. People do change. I remember when I went to visit my friend in hospital. I hadn’t seen her for a while, and walked straight past her bed because I just didn’t recognise her. Even when I asked the nurse and went to her bed, I still found it hard to believe it was her, until she recognised me and spoke. We can all get ‘experts’ to say what we want them to. I would have thought we would all be very wary of ‘experts’ these days. Look how many qualified ‘experts’ told us to get covid-vaccinated.

Also – think about it – if the Vatican had placed a compliant fake in there, why was she forbidden to see anyone without Vatican permission and all her publicly released writings had to be vetted by the Vatican as well? If it was a fake, singing from the same hymn sheet as those who planted her there, they surely wouldn’t have been so concerned about isolating her, and would have made far more use of her to confirm that the Consecration had been done and the full 3rd Secret released. As it was, the Vatican always relied on the same very scant, non-verifiable evidence allegedly from Sr Lucia to confirm their version of events (in fact, as Christopher Ferrara has pointed out, everything points to these ‘proofs’ as being fake. That seems far more likely to me – I think he even named one of the culprits as Msgr Guerra, who used to be the Shrine Director).

I still maintain regarding Sister Lucia, that it’s a case of an elderly religious, who took her vow of obedience very seriously, being manipulated by elements in the Vatican. She has stated in her books that she was only the witness and not the interpreter of the Fatima events. Even if she thought the Vatican had misinterpreted various elements, and even if she had privately corrected any misinterpretations, they would never have seen the light of day. Sadly, in her latter years, it appears she might have, to some degree, accepted what was fed to her from the Vatican through her superiors about various things. People also seem to think that Sr Lucia is in some way infallible, which of course, she isn’t. Age, confusion, pressure from the Vatican, a desire to fulfil her vow of obedience, may have all contributed towards the contradictions in her earlier and later stances. I’m not famous, but if I was suddenly substituted for a lookee-likee, don’t you think my family, neighbours and friends might notice? I’m afraid I can’t give Chojnowski’s theory any credence. And, of course, it’s become an ‘apostolate’, so money will be involved somewhere. I checked and Chojnowski’s website does have a ‘Donate’ page. Naturally.

Although Chojnowski quotes several professionals who support his theory, and he grudgingly admitted one came back with a neutral result, I wonder if any more that were contacted didn’t agree with this theory and if he’s conveniently airbrushed those out of the equation.

Another point – I have one of those booklets from the Coimbra Carmel, written by a Sister Maria Celina de Jesus Crucificado, OCD. Most of it is quite predictable, taking the Vatican party-line on everything. However, even in a booklet like this, which appears to have been written to conform to the Vatican agenda, I feel that Heaven has allowed something to be inadvertently revealed, which appears to contradict the tone of the booklet. On page 45, the following is stated:-

“It was in the year 2003, on 26th May. I went with her (Sister Lucia) to the lower choir in order to take a photograph of her with the image of the Immaculate Heart of Mary which had just been given to us. It is this photograph which has been used for the cover of this booklet. When I had taken the photograph, Sister Lucia continued to gaze at the Image. I did not disturb her. Then, turning to me, she said anxiously: “Our Lady is crying!!!” I think that, thanks to her extraordinary purity, her “ingenuousness”, she who had been the recipient of so many visions that no-one else had seen, thought at that moment that I, too, could see what she saw. And I, thinking that her statement was a question, said “No, she’s not”. I saw that she looked ‘caught out’, so to speak, like a child whose mother finds her stealing the jam! I said nothing. I thought that I should not ask any questions. I have not spoken of this incident until now. And I wished that that particular image should watch over her mortal remains with her motherly gaze until they were due to be taken to the Cathedral in Coimbra.”

If Our Lady knew that Her wishes had been fulfilled in 1984; that the Consecration of Russia to Her Immaculate Heart had been accomplished, and that the full Third Secret had been revealed in 2000 – why did She reveal Herself crying to Sister Lucia in 2003? These tears of Our Lady, witnessed by Sister Lucia, and unwittingly revealed by Sister Maria Celina de Jesus Crucificado, are another sign that Sr Lucia is the genuine article and that Our Lady’s requests haven’t been fulfilled. A fake would have said that Our Lady was smiling because the Consecration was done in 1984 and the full Secret released in 2000.

I once met Joao Marto – Francisco and Jacinta’s brother (he was the one who Lucia sent off to get Jacinta and Francisco just before Our Lady appeared at Valinhos, after they were kidnapped) the very first time I went to Fatima. It was in the mid 1980’s. He was born around 1906 so he would have been in his mid 80’s. I think we went the next year, or maybe it was the year after, and found out he had died. But there were many other living relatives of both families (Lucia’s and Jacinta/Francisco’s) in Aljustrel as well – Joao’s daughter, Jacinta Pereiro Marto, still lives in Aljustrel to this day. I’ve met her as well, and another man who was a Marto although I forget his name and relationship to the seers. They are surrounded by little piety shops in Aljustrel selling books and pictures depicting the supposed ‘fake’ Lucia, and don’t seem concerned by it. I’ve never got the impression they were part of a massive conspiracy.

While I think Fr Gruner may have flirted with the idea for a while (possibly egged on by Chojnowski who worked for the Fatima Network at that time – not any longer) to the best of my knowledge, he didn’t reflect this in the Fatima Crusader or any of his writings, even to the end. He just didn’t go down that road, and if anyone knew the Fatima issues inside out, it was Fr Gruner. In fact, he even did a YouTube video with John Vennari about it: Was There a Fake Sister Lucy? Fr Gruner also wouldn’t have been helping to publish, promote and sell Christopher Ferrara’s books through the Fatima Network when Ferrara makes it obvious he believes that there was only one Sr Lucia who was a victim of Vatican silencing, lies and machinations. By mentioning Fr Gruner and showing his picture, I felt Chojnowski made it appear in that LifeSite video, that he was part of this whole thing and supported Chojnowski’s views, which isn’t right because the YouTube video shows that Fr Gruner didn’t support his views.

Frere Michel de la Sainte Trinite, the author of the masterly trilogy on Fatima ‘The Whole Truth About Fatima’ never mentioned or entertained the theory even once to the best of my knowledge. The trilogy is out of print but available free online here: The Whole Truth About Fatima Joao Machado who runs the site, has also written a book called ‘Fatima, the Pope and America: The Decisive Battle’ advertised on the site, but it has to be purchased and I haven’t read it.

The trouble is with people like Chojnowski, once they get a bee in their bonnet about something, and build an ‘apostolate’ around it, taking money and staking their reputation on it, they seldom, if ever, tend to back down, and end up bending or ignoring any and every fact to suit their agenda. The Vatican simply wouldn’t need to resort to the drastic measures of ‘switching’ Lucia and risking a leak from literally countless people, when they already had a cloistered nun, forbidden to speak to outsiders without permission, committed to obedience and totally submissive to the will of her superiors, and as I said, if they had put a plant in there, they’d have made far more use of her to support their agenda than they did. Also, what does Chojnowski think happened to the ‘real’ Lucia? Did she die of natural causes or was she murdered? And what happened to her body? I’m not going to wait with bated breath for the next ‘gripping’ instalment in this saga. In my opinion, Chojnowski is off the rails, and so is anyone who gives credence to this nonsense, and shame on anyone for pushing it.

@English Catholic, @Credo .
Im am sorry for both of you, behind pseudonims, in great trouble if you don't see the gravity of this penal issue!
This is a major subject for an international court murder trial, with implications at least on Free Mason Roncalli, KGB-agent Montini, the Soviet KGB, the Vatican Secret Services and the Portugal Secret Services, at least.
The undoubtful clarification is possible only trough DNA-tests involving Sister Lucia's relatives and the buried nun died and buried at Fatima.