Talk:Three Secrets of Fátima

References needed

This article is interesting and worthwhile, but in order to conform with Wikipedia policy, it needs to have a "References" section that lists where the information came from. Please also be sure to read Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research, to ensure that the article complies with those policies as well. And best wishes! --Elonka 19:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Pope Benedict remarks on islam

Recent remarks herald a new assassination attempt and the third secret of fatima? 146.115.120.205 02:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No, the Third Secret was JP2's near-assassination in the early 80s. The Vatican has spoken. Vashti 01:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mary is God

Concerning this post:

To judge it (Mary is God) as non-deserving of inclusion to this topic is too bias in favor of well established entities but not necessarily in accordance to wikipedia's fair and just objective to inform and educate.

The third secret of fatima is a widely argued issue in the Catholic Church. The authenticity of the Vatican revealed secret of June 2000 is largely being contested not just by lay catholics but by prominent Catholic Clergy. In this regard, no one has the right to validate or invalidate any claim where final judgment is non-existent.

Furthermore, the inclusion of this site's link here violates nothing. They are simply sharing a Catholic belief, which although not popular, still is a belief of Catholics in connection to the third secret of Fatima. Wikipedia's spirit demands that we give fair allocation to all concerned in this particular topic. We may however, exclude sites and claims that are not directly connected to Fatima. These include claims of several Marian visionaries.

Please do consider this plea in light of wikipedia's mission. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor chito (talk • contribs) 05:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been posted on many pages around Wikipedia. I can't find any theological support for the proposed dogma. The only source that supports the belief is [www.maryisgod.org]. All other sources denounce the page. I'm removing this information, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

There is no good reason to include this link within this article. The content is hardly relevant. Just because some person claims to have had a revelation about the Third Secret of Fatima, the content of which has nothing to do with the actual released material on the subject, does not make it pertinent for an encyclopedia. Shall we include links to every unusual claim made connected with this subject? I don't think so. Albie34423 (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it does not belong in this article. The Fatima apparitions have been given credibility by recognition from several popes as well as millions of the faithful around the world. At this time the "Mary is God" claims are not notable, and putting them (or a link) in this article diminishes the notability of the Fatima apparitions. Ward3001 (talk) 20:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed over seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

The third secret relates the the Bishop in Rome, http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm, not the shooting of the pope, its a supernatural message not human meaning.

The struggle within the church is obvoius to all outsides, the level of corruption and greed is easy to see, for the catholic faith and church to survie it must become poor like this poor priest in Rome,

That's interesting that you mentioned the relationship between the third secret and the shooting of the Pope, which is not addressed in the article. Do you know what the source of that interpretation was? I think the Pope himself made that interpretation, but I am not sure. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger's commentary seems to disagree that the message is at all related to the Pope's near-assassination. Albie34423 01:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Major Update Needed - Third Secret Revealed!

This article needs to be updated. The "Third Secret" was revealed almost seven years ago, and made a prediction about the assassination attempt carried out on Pope John Paul II.

A resource:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/747312.stm

I am relatively new to Wikipedia, and therefore would perhaps not be efficient in editing this article.

Just becasue it was falsely represented does not mean its true the true meaning can be found in part at this link,

http://www.madredelleucaristia.it/eng/fatima3secret.htm

The section on the Third Secret provides the full text of the third secret along with some quotations from Ratzinger's commentary. What needs to be updated? Albie34423 20:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Second Secret and WWII

The second secret is a great example of bending a prophesy to claim a hit; the problem is that it doesn't predict WWII (or, rather, it predicts that Russia, not Germany, would be the antagonist of that war). Titanium Dragon 23:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The article qualifies the statement that the second secret predicts WWII with the word "supposedly" to emphasize the fact that there is disagreement. Albie34423 20:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 'second secret' is a great example of people believing what they want to believe rather than the obvious truth: The 'secret' was revealed in 1941, three years after the events it supposedly predicted!

Seriously, how can anyone even consider these to be predictions?

I had a vision in 1999 of G. W. Bush's face superimposed over the WTC, and the towers were burning... of course I was ordered not to reveal my vision to anyone until the time was right. So, do you believe me? Well hundreds of thousands believed the exact same kind of "prediction" made by Lucia Santos. I believe this article should place FAR more emphasis on the fact that no one at all knew the supposed "second secret", not even Santos, until well after the events it supposedly predicts.

Note also that the Catholic Church has admitted and apologised for the assistance it gave the Nazis, and Lucia just happened to start decrying Russia and its evil ways in time for Hitler to invade. Funny that! Also note that the 'second secret' says not one word about Hitler or the Nazis, but singles out the evil Russians as the blame for armageddon, even though it was really the Soviet Union that defeated the undeniably evil Nazi regime.

I guess I am not shocked that this would be downplayed here, there are a lot of believers after all, but there should be more emphasis placed on the obvious problems with these 'predictions'. 121.72.1.164 (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Contrary to the first comment in this section, the 2nd secret doesn't predict that Russia would be the antagonist of WWII. Some may read it to imply this, but it doesn't explicitly say that. It does say it can be prevented by consecrating Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, but that is not equivalent to saying that Russia would be the "antagonist." And when you read the next paragraph, you'll see that what's being talked about with regard to Russia is something that's larger in scope than WWII, e.g. "wars and persecutions of the Church", along with a mention that "in the end" her "Immaculate Heart will triumph", followed by a period of peace. My guess is that all of this would be more fully eludicated in the real Third Secret, that one-page text which the Vatican never published. Icehound (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

How can the opinion of people who doubt the veracity of the timing of the second secret be not taken as a fact and adding that it is a fact that Dos Santos wrote the 2nd Secret before WWII without citation, be a fact?--79.141.46.227 (talk) 14:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Third Secret and John Paul II

There is a statement in the article: "Pope John Paul II said that this secret forshadowed the assassination attempt on his life". The cited source says: "Cardinal Angelo Sodano ... said that, after the 1981 assassination attempt by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca, 'it appeared evident to his Holiness that it was a motherly hand which guided the bullets past, enabling the dying Pope to halt at the threshold of death.''" My opinion is that the source fails verification for the statement in the article. I'm not asserting anything about what JPII did or did not think about the third secret, just that the source does not confirm the statement. I think the statement should be deleted, but I welcome other opinions. Ward3001 01:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the statement should just be changed to reflect what the source says. I am not an expert on Christianity, and actually am not even Christain, so maybe we want an expert in this subject. (Or at least a Catholic.) Smartyllama 13:00, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the source about JPII relating events involved in the assassination attempt with any of the Fatima secrets. The statement only refers to JPII's belief that Mary intervened to prevent his death. The source is unclear about a relationship, if any, between the third secret and the assassination attempt. Without additional information, stating that JPII saw a relationship ("foreshadowed") is speculative. So I think the statement in the article should be deleted. Ward3001 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

You do have a point there. However, I remember reading somewhere that Pope John Paul revealed that he knew he was going to be assasinated due to the Third Secret. (Actually, the article was about the assasinator, who heard of this and sued claiming that he could not be jailed because the attempt was premeditated.) Smartyllama 11:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the statement in the article is not substantiated by the source. The assassination attempt occurred on May 13th, the same day as the first of the six apparitions in Fatima. It seems that JPII believed that this was not a coincidence and that Mary had something to do with his survival. It does not appear that he specifically links the third secret to this event. Albie34423 21:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Third Secret Disputed

The following was added as a commentary on the supposed disputed status of the third secret. It is true that some groups of Fatima devotees dispute whether or not the full text of the third secret has been revealed by the papacy. I get news letters from "The Fatima Center" which frequently bring up this topic of late. However, this being Wikipedia, I think that we need to find some good sources for this so that it doesn't read like one person's argument in favor of a particular point of view. Albie34423 (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Some dispute that the Third Secret text released by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith constituted the entire Third Secret of Fatima. Few question that the handwriting is truly that of Sister Lucia, but there are many inconsistencies with what we knew beforehand about the Third Secret.

First, in her Fourth Memoir, Sister Lucia wrote what Fatima scholars have universally understood to be the start of the Third Secret: immediately after giving word for word the second part of the Secret, as above, Sister Lucia wrote "In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc." As the official archivist of the Fatima apparitions, Father Joaquin Alonso, said, it must go on to say that the dogma of the Faith will not be kept in certain other parts of the world.

Also, Father Joseph Schweigl was sent by Pope Pius XII to interrogate Sister Lucia. Here is his report on the interrogation: "I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the Third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope; the other logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved.’"

Thus, many conclude that the Vatican released the part of the twofold secret that that concerned the Pope, but neglected to address the other part, which is the continuation of the words of the Virgin Mary. In the Vatican announcement in February of 1960 that the Secret would not be released, the Vatican said the Third Secret contained the "words which Our Lady confided as a secret". No words were included in the Vatican's version of the Third Secret. It is also known from the testimony of Cardinal Ottaviani and Bishop Joano Venancio of the diocese of Fatima, Portugal that the Secret was written on one sheet of paper, whereas what was revealed was written on four sheets of paper.

Sister Lucia died in her convent in 2005 without ever publicly commenting on either the represented or the possible actual content of the third secret, as the Church never lifted it's bar on her, as commanding her not to speak.

Just to note, I have a copy of a report from the Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001, which claims that Lucia told Archbishiop Bertone in an interview that the secret has been completely revealed and published, and that no secrets remain. While this is not an example of Lucia making a public comment on the supposed completeness of the third secret as published, it is an example of a private comment of hers being made public. So, something like the above statement should not be left alone without some qualification.

Yes, well, those are the same folks who wouldn't reveal the secret for eighty-five years, then release nothing which would explain why they wanted it kept secret for eighty-five years, and then merely "saying" Lucia "said" they had revealed the secret. You can be sure, if Lucia had said the secret had been revealed by them, they would have placed her next to the "pope" on international television, saying so.

Much in Wikipedia isn't sourced, and if you want to delete what everyone knows is credible unsourced information, you should at least be claiming that you believe that the information you deleted isn't true, otherwise you look very biased, and which disbelief you haven't stated. The Zenit article you cite is a credible source for the existence of the dispute over the veracity of the Vatican's version of the third secret, therefore I have re-inserted the portion you deleted. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The wiki policy you cite states "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." To "challenge" material, means to at least state a belief that the material isn't accurate, not merely that it isn't sourced. If a mere claim that material isn't sourced were all it takes to delete material, 99% of wikipedia would be gone. Since you are unwilling to claim that you believe the material you deleted is not accurate and cannot be sourced, please do not delete the material which everyone knows is likely to be sourced as soon as someone finds the time to do it. In any event, certainly do not delete the material which I DID already source, namely that the veracity of the Vatican's version of the secret is widely disputed. 69.215.128.190 (talk) 03:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Ward3001 - What do you mean by "edit-warring" and what do you mean by "no verification in the source provided"? Why don't you consider Zenit Daily Dispatch dated Dec. 20, 2001 a citable source? You haven't cited a single wiki guideline that it might violate in its use in the section documenting the existence of dispute over the Vatican's version of the third secret. I'm thinking that you should know that deleting sourced material violates wiki policy, so why did you do it? 64.109.200.117 (talk) 14:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page to read WP:3RR and WP:Edit war, which you apparently didn't do. And about the source you cite: regardless of whether it's a "citable source", here is the issue that you don't seem to grasp: the source you provide does not include the information you have added to the article. If I make a statement in an article that space aliens have taken over the Vatican, and cite a source that talks about space aliens but says nothing about the Vatican, that is not an appropriate source. So essentially, you have not provided a source to back up you edits. That's where you are violating Wikipedia policy. You want the "single wiki guideline": thoroughly read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. And while you're at it, be aware that you have violated WP:3RR, for which can get you an immediate block if reported; and if you continue reverting without adding a source that verifies the information in your edits, I will make vandalism as well as 3RR reports. Wikipedia has some degree of flexibility for new editors, but edit warring, violating 3RR, and adding unsourced controversial information is not tolerated after you have been warned. And you have been warned repeatedly. Ward3001 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

My primary concern with the section is that it was a poorly cited attempt to argue for a specific point of view. It mentioned that "some dispute" that "many conclude" and that "few question" while also stating that "we know" without specifically stating whom and providing good citations. I moved the section to this talk page rather than simply deleting it entirely because I felt that the topic does deserve to be mentioned, but that this was unsatisfactory. I have created a brief section on this controversy that states some specific facts from both sides with proper references and a neutral disposition. I will be watching to make sure that this space does not get hijacked to debate the merits of the case for either side. Albie34423 (talk) 19:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I thank you for making a balanced and appropriately cited addition. Ward3001 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection of the article

After a recent discussion on the Wikipedia:Help desk, one of the users is asking why can't he edit the article but although the article is semi-protected from editing, the user has noticed that there isn't any lock symbol indicating that it's protected, should the lock symbol be on the article if not why is the editing semi-protected. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is protected because of repeated, dynamic IP POV-pushing, adding unsourced or inadequtely sourced information, and deletion of appropriately sourced information by one user. Ward3001 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, i've tried to put a valid link once to a certain site and noticed that one user simply deleted my link and replaced it with http://www.madredelleucaristia.it ... worse, he / she used the descriptions i had for that site i was linking with. can there be any way such uncivilized actions be prevented?

Also, the third secret is a very important and current issue in the catholic church. the participation / entries of various authors should be given equal chance. i'd like to raise the importance of other sites being given a link in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor chito (talk • contribs) 08:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence James Downey

Should there not be some mention of the plane hijacking in the 1980s by Lawrence James Downey, who wanted the vatican to release the secret85.0.41.156 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be good if someone has information on it. Albie34423 (talk) 01:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Secret of Fatima has been fully published

There is no reason to believe, that the Vatican withholds the complete "Third Secret of Fatima". The prophecies of the Roman Catholic Alois Irlmaier and the "Prophecy of the Popes" e.g., are much more believable and relevant, and Alois Irlmaier has been proven right in the last years with the events unfolding that we now see. And no one withheld these prophecies. And both Alois Irlmaier's prophecies and the "Prophecy of the Popes" speak about the end of the world as we know it.

Irlmaier has not been recognized by the Church, neither has he been noticed by a large group of the laity, unlike the case of Fatima. Interestingly, he also doesn't notice the persecution of the Church after the war which is explicitly noted in the Olivet Discourse - that is, contra Irlmaier, there is no scriptural reason to expect the post-war period to be one of "happiness". 76.24.104.52 (talk) 19:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone ever explained

Has anyone in the Vatican ever explained WHY the third secret was kept secret at all, since it's heavily symbolic and not all that earthshaking?

And really, how could anyone read that statement and think it was a reference to a single unsuccessful attempt on a single Pope's life? Seems to me like a rather transparent attempt to fit a real event INTO the secret, even if it doesn't fit. 69.74.54.23 (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the article? I think your questions are answered in the controversy section. Icehound (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

two links in the "Third secret" section redirect to Jacques Vallée?

They are the links for Dr. Joaquim Fernandes and Fina d'Armada. I was going to delete them but wanted some input from others as I'm still new to this editing business. Lynn Maury (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

You should delete them if the links aren't going to a page on the right persons. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 23:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

This was done due to a past dispute. It was not resolved properly in my opinion but for now it might be better if the were changed to something related to the Miracle at Fatima. They are researchers into the Miracle of Fatima and refuted some of the traditional beliefs by the Catholic Church but they speculated about UFOs and this was considered fringe and the page was redirected to Jaques Vallee for inadequate reasons then the computer did the rest. If I don't get to it today I'll get to it later either by changing the redirect or providing information on the individuals. Zacherystaylor (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I changed it to The Miracle of the Sun for now but may revist it if I come up with something else. Good day Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you object, I plan on just removing the links and redirect altogether, because I believe that the convention is to not link a name at all if there is no corresponding page on the person. Readers who click on a person's name expect it to take them to a biographical page on the relevant person. A link to the "Miracle of the Sun" article can be achieved by working in a mention of the alleged phenomenon into the main body of the article and linking it. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have removed the internal links to the non-existent pages on these two persons and have added deletion templates to the entries. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For now I see no problem removing the links; however I think it would be better to provide a little information about them on the page they are redirected to or provide enough information for an article. I'm not going to spend much time on it soon but may add a little to the article since it would be better than to delete it and then to replace it when there is more information. Zacherystaylor (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Paul Kramer material

Looks like in November there were a bunch of edits adding links to an online book by Paul Kramer. Is this really a reliable source?--Larrybob (talk) 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This book is available both online and in print form. Father Paul Kramer is a leading critic and Fatima scholar, and yes it is a reliable source for the purpose of a controversy section. The sections of his book challenging the authenticity and completeness of the Vatican's 2000 release are based on objective, verifiable evidence. And at least three other books by other authors, including an attorney and a journalist, have also been written making the same claims and relying on the same evidence, as noted and cited in the second paragraph of this section. And there weren't a "bunch of edits adding links" as you say, to his online book. There was only one inline link, and the purpose of it was to provide a helpful note to the reader. Most published books aren't available for free at the click of a mouse, and people who are interested in reading this section to begin with would probably find this note to the reader very helpful, and wouldn't find out about it otherwise. And yes, selective, pertinent inline links to online publications like articles and other publications are allowed on Wikipedia, although various editors may disagree as to whether the particular link should be included inline or moved down to an external links section. The other links you're talking about were only added as part of citations, mostly as a second citation. And they were appropriate. YouWillBeAssimilated (talk) 21:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The section Third Secret controversy prob gives undue weight to a minority opinion, and shouldn't be treated too leniently. My advice is "shrink it to small", but not infinitesimal. I see lots of references in that section, but so far I've seen only Paul Kramer's ref as opposing the official papal stmt. The Kramer reference is a website essentially promoting a book with a conspiracy theory, the reference to the Vatican document essentially doesn't support the statements in the section. (Abstain from accusing me for apologism, I'm a Lutheran, and really don't care who's right, but Paul Kramer is wrong!) Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also: Exceptional claims require exceptional sources a.k.a. WP:REDFLAG. The Kramer source seems to use various citations from clerical sources, including popes, out of context so to promote an image of conspiracy within the church. My estimation balances towards "crank", not towards "leading authority". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 14:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion retracted, WP:UNDUE and WP:REDFLAG retained. This is a political battle between Roman Catholic Church and traditionalists, especially around SSPX, here search for "Paul Kramer", where the three secrets of Fátima are just used as political weapons. The section Third Secret controversy should be placed in another article, maybe in SSPX because it is based around the book The Devil's Final Battle using fear as a advertizement method to sell a book, which revolves around the conspiracy theories about "Modernism" and "Liberalism", that uses whatever "prophecy" or alleged/debunked false prophecy they can find in order to prove that supposed "infiltration from Satan" into the top of the Roman Catholic Church. It's a wonder to me, that they have not been excommunicated. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 16:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

If the "Third Secret Controversy" section draws too much from Kramer's book then fix it. There are plenty of other sources quoting people who suspect that wasn't all there was to it. I didn't even know who Kramer was until I started reading this discussion page. --Bluejay Young (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Fr. Mario de Oliveira

Can anybody locate more information about who this "Fr. Mario de Oliveira" is who says that Lucia had "infantile fantasies" and "religious hallucinations"? This quote, originally from the London Times, is otherwise only found on skeptic websites, with elaborations like "he knew her well" and "he knew her as a child". I cannot find any reference to this guy in any of my books on Fatima or online. I've left it in there in case someone does have a reference and can elaborate. --Bluejay Young (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I've met Frade Mario de Oliveira a couple times. He's real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.69.121.178 (talk) 13:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I was able to find Mario de Olivera

• "The Pope Comes to Fatima" (in Portuguese). 2010-05-10.

The Google Portuguese to English translation contains this biographical data:

Who is Padre Mario de Oliveira was born on March 8, 1937, in Lourosa Fair. He was ordained a priest / elder of the Church of Porto, August 5, 1962. Since then, until, since March 1973 by staff unilateral decision of Bishop Antonio Gomes Ferreira, the anomalous situation canonical priest without official pastoral letter...

What is clear is that he was not trained as a psychiatrist and therefore not able to diagnose Sr. Lucia, and being born in 1937 was 30 years younger than she, and had no contact with her. I'm going to remove from the article the de Olivera content. It's not enough to appear in the article on the basis that it appeared in the London Times. The extraordinary claim needs more support than from what appears to be a former priest giving a mere opinion without a factual basis. Apart from the Wikipedia, it's disturbing to see so many web sites repeat the damaging "infantile fantasies" and "religious hallucinations" diagnosis without elaborating on how de Olivera arrived at it. patsw (talk) 00:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just fine with me. He sounds like a fake himself. Thank you. --Bluejay Young (talk) 07:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What kind of citations do you need?

In the section on interpreting the third secret as possibly referring to an apostasy and division within the Church, we go from JP2 referring to "the message of Fatima" (it doesn't say the third secret -- did he mean the general Fatima message or the secret?) as having to do with Revelations 12:3-4, where a third of the stars are cast down by Satan. We go from that to the priest saying that Rev. 12:3-4 has always been understood by Catholic scholars to mean priests and other religious who fall from their consecrated state, so the 3rd secret must have something to do with that. Then we have:

In a published interview, Lucia is quoted as telling Fr. Fuentes, "The devil knows that religious and priests who fall away from their beautiful vocation drag numerous souls to hell."[47] A "falling away" from the faith is an apostasy[says who?][citation needed].

The word "apostasy" is linked within the article. It is defined in that article, up front, as "is the formal religious disaffiliation, abandonment, or renunciation of one's religion, especially if the motive is deemed unworthy." That sure sounds like "falling away" to me, and I have been in various churches where when they said "falling away", that was exactly what they meant. Now, would someone explain what kind of citation is needed and what is that "says who?" in there for? I'll be glad to help fix it, but I need to know what is wrong with it. I will also go back and read JP2's speech to be sure he said "the message of Fatima" and was not directly referencing the 3rd Secret. --Bluejay Young (talk) 08:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

See WP:SYNTHESIS to get the idea of what's wrong with connecting dots between "falling away" and "apostasy". For arguments sake, even if there were a "scholarly consensus" that these two terms were identical in meaning, that would not imply that every speaker of "falling away" actually meant "apostasy". patsw (talk) 14:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have read enough of JP2's homily from 2000-15-13 to be sure he was talking about the Fatima message in general and not merely the Third Secret. In fact, the parts of the message he mentions in conjunction with the Revelations verse are from the 4th apparition, not part of the secret, and speak about humanity in general: they heard her say "pray, pray very much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them". Therefore this isn't connected with the third secret and therefore I am taking it out.

Since Lucia did not actually use the word "apostasy", if this is not in accordance with the rules -- and I can see how it isn't -- I have to take it out also. Just because it sounds like something she would say doesn't mean she said it, especially in light of the fact that there is considerable controversy over how many of Lucia's statements (not during the apparitions but after she entered Carmel) were in fact really hers. I'm surprised she was allowed to make any public statements. It's not that Carmelite nuns aren't allowed to say or publish anything but when they do it usually just says "by a Carmelite sister". --Bluejay Young (talk)