At Fatima



Orthodox Christian Religious Foundation
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma - 1989 

Orthodox Interest 

According to Roman Catholic claims, between May and October of 1917, the Mother of God appeared six times to three children - Lucia, Jacinta, and Francisco - in the Portuguese village of Fatima. The initial appearances attracted little or no attention, but by the time of the last one up to 50,000 people were present; at this time, many people claimed to see the sun dance in the sky, but at no time did anyone but the three children see the person who was appearing. 

Over the years, many Orthodox Christians have expressed an interest in these events, primarily because of the predictions about the conversion of Russia which were made in one of the appearances. It strikes many as significant that an apparent manifestation of the Theotokos occurred at the same time as the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; they would like to hope from this that the Theotokos has indicated a way by which Russia might be freed from Communist domination. Thus, Tatiana Goricheva, a well-known Russian Orthodox dissident and exile from the Soviet Union, tells of how she learned about Fatima and speaks of fulfilling the directions of the Theotokos at Fatima for the conversion of Russia1. Refer to the referenced footnote for her narrative. 

However, when one examines the events at Fatima in detail, it turns out that they were not primarily about Russia at all; rather, they presented or reaffirmed a number of distinctly Roman Catholic doctrines. One must consider these teachings as a whole in order to determine how an Orthodox Christian should view the whole event. 

It should be noted that there are a surprising number of discrepancies in the reports of the conversations between the children and the apparition, raising the possibility of some later corruption or alterations in the texts. For the most part the text followed in this paper is that presented by Sister Lucia, one of the three children, in her memoirs. 

Who Actually Appeared? 

First of all, no one knows who appeared at Fatima. In the first appearance, the apparition made no claim at all to be the Theotokos. Jacinta first identified her as the Virgin Mary, but Lucia initially was doubtful about who the apparition was2. In later appearances, the apparition did not always specifically claim to be the Mother of God, but rather spoke of itself, rather oddly, as “Our Lady of the Rosary” and the “Immaculate Heart of Mary.”3 In the fifth appearance, the apparition told the children, “In October Our Lord will come, as well as our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel. Saint Joseph will appear with the Child Jesus to bless the world.”4 This sounds strange to our ears, since it almost seems to imply that these “Ladies” are different people. 

What Was Taught 

The doctrines presented by the apparition are striking, since they reinforce many of the most unusual and extreme innovations of recent Roman Catholicism. The include the following: 

Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary 

The primary purpose of the apparition was to encourage devotion to the so-called Immaculate Heart of Mary. 

In the second appearance, the apparition said, “Jesus wishes to make use of you to make me known and loved. He wants to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.”5 This devotional practice is related to the cult of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the twelfth century a revolution occurred in the devotional practices of the Roman Catholic Church; this revolution was inspired by the preaching of Bernard of Clairveaux and spread widely by Francis of Assisi. 

As attention was shifted from our redemption by the Resurrection of the Lord to a focus on the Passion of the Lord, an erotic element was introduced in worship and private devotion. The Lord came to be viewed as a companion, friend, or even husband/lover, as is reflected in the marriage imagery which was introduced into Western monasticism (in taking their vows, nuns went through a sort of wedding ceremony, complete with bridal gowns, wedding rings, etc. with the Lord as the groom). This new devotion stressed the worshipper’s individual union with the Mystic Lover, concentrating on the pain of the Lord’s suffering and trying to arouse emotional feelings by focusing on His earthly life. 

Among the manifestations of this new approach to worship are the Feast of the Holy Name, special devotions to the Five Wounds of Christ, the Stations of the Cross, the meditations assigned to the decades of the Rosary, the Christmas “crib” and devotion to the “Baby Jesus” in general, and the cult of the Sacred Heart of Jesus6. This latter cult focuses on one part of our Lord’s physical body and effectively separates the worship of the human nature of Christ from His Divine Nature; for this reason it has never found any acceptance in the Orthodox Church, who teaches her children to worship the Lord in His Divine-human unity, not in each of the natures separately. Orthodoxy has also maintained a much more restrained and objective devotional approach to the Lord, avoiding sensuality, sentimentality, and emotionalism. 

Unfortunately, as the Roman Catholic doctrine of Mary has developed in recent centuries, it has tried to parallel every attribute of Christ with one in Mary, going even to the extreme of calling her the “Co-Redemptrix” of the world and suggesting that she shares in Christ’s Priesthood in some way. Devotion to the Immaculate Heart of Mary is one more example of this tendency, paralleling the cult of the Sacred Heart of Jesus. 

But if the cult of the Sacred Heart is too dangerously overloaded with emotion, sentimentality, and sensuality for it to be acceptable to Orthodoxy, what can we say about an extension of this cult to the Theotokos? The problem here is that Roman Catholicism has lost the Orthodox concept of the deification of all of those who participate in God’s life-creating, sanctifying, and uncreated grace. The Church Militant and the Church Triumphant - all, in fact, who struggle in the life that is in Christ - participate in Christ’s redemptive work. They are “a chosen generation, a priestly kingdom, a holy nation.” 

When the Church’s Orthodox doctrine of grace, salvation, and deification is forsaken for one which is carnal, erroneous, and distorted, then, inevitably, theological dislocations and aberrations will appear also in regard to the doctrines of the priesthood and redemption. This is especially evident in regard to the position of the Theotokos in Roman Catholicism, where her cultus clearly begins to border on Mariolatry. It is even more objectionable when particular parts of Mary are singled out for particular devotion7

In antiquity, there were two heretical sects, the Antidicomarianites and the Collyridians. The first refused to honor the Theotokos at all and denied her perpetual virginity, the second made her equal to God. Concerning the latter, St. Epiphanius of Cyprus writes that “certain women made small loaves and offered them in (Mary’s) name in religious rites performed by women...And in Sikima, the local villagers offer sacrifices in the name of the Maiden (Theotokos).”8 The Orthodox Church strives ever to preserve the truth, deviating neither to the right nor to the left, but walking on the straight and narrow way which leads to the Kingdom of Heaven. St. Epiphanius writes that both of the extremes reflected in the doctrines and practices of these two aforementioned sects are “the teachings of demons. The harm,” he writes, “that comes from both of these heresies is equal.” 

We can see that, in regard to the Theotokos, the Protestants tend to reflect the views of the Antidicomarianites, whereas the modern Roman Catholics, who in extremes of pietism promulgate such ideas as that of “Co-Redemptrix,” clearly resemble the Collyridians. Orthodoxy adheres to the middle way, venerating the Theotokos as the holiest of God’s creatures and pouring out love for her, but not dishonoring her by falsely exalting her to an imagined equality with her Divine Son. By honoring her purity and holiness and by emulating in our own lives her total obedience to God, we show our true devotion to her. 

The Roman Catholic tendency to make Mary equal to the Lord is manifested in the second appearance at Fatima, when the apparition promised salvation to all who practice devotion to the Immaculate Heart. It said, “To all those who embrace (devotion to my Immaculate Heart), I promise salvation and their souls will be loved by God as flowers placed by the way that will lead you to God.”9 

In the third appearance, the apparition showed the children a vision of hell, and then said, “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart.”10 In this same appearance, the children were told that there would be peace if people did what the apparition commanded. 

One of the most striking statements attributed to the apparition is found in the first appearance. There is a disagreement in the sources about the wording of the statement, but some versions say that people must suffer as a means of repaying the Immaculate Heart of Mary for their sins and offenses. As presented in these sources, in the first appearance, the apparition said, “Will you suffer to obtain the conversion of sinners, to repair the blasphemies, as well as all the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary?”11 In the third appearance, the one in which the conversion of Russia is mentioned, the apparition tells the children, “Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of you, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”12 

But our sins are not committed against the Theotokos, or her heart; they are committed against God, and it is from Him that we must ask forgiveness. It is before Him that we must repent. Certainly, the Theotokos sorrows when she contemplates our sin and disobedience. In reality, not only the Theotokos, but all the saints - indeed all creation - “groans and travails” because of mankind’s sins. As the prodigal son said, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee.” But ultimately, God is the One Who has the authority to forgive our sins. For “who can forgive sins, save God alone?” (Mk. 2:7) 

To say, therefore, that we must make “reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary” literally puts her in the place of God, which is to repeat the blasphemy of Satan who wants us to worship the creation, rather than the Creator. Further, in these instances, the apparition is speaking in the language of the late Medieval scholastics, not with the voice of the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. The forgiveness of sins and restoration to sonship which mankind received through the voluntary Passion, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of Christ are not the fruit of a legalistic act demanded by some Divine justice; rather, they are a gift freely given as a result of the supreme act of love freely chosen by God to redeem us. 

There is no reparation, no satisfaction - there is nothing that we can do of ourselves to deserve them. This is why Our Lord Jesus Christ became man, suffered, died and rose again - to break down the wall between us and God. Nothing we do, no suffering of ours can replace what He did for us. This is precisely why in the Divine Liturgy, the Priest exclaims, “Thine own of Thine own we offer unto Thee, in behalf of all, and for all.” 

The Rosary 

In the sixth appearance the apparition calls itself the “Lady of the Rosary.” One of the methods recommended repeatedly by the apparition for obtaining world peace is the daily use of the Rosary. Now, the Rosary is a distinctively Roman Catholic devotion, one which is foreign to Orthodox piety. The Rosary consists of fifteen “mysteries,” or subjects for meditation, e.g. the Annunciation, the Crucifixion, the Crowning of Mary as Queen of Heaven, etc.; while reciting the Hail Mary ten times for each mystery, one is supposed to try to visualize the event commemorated in that mystery. 

As is true of many Western Christian methods of meditation, this approach actively encourages the use of the imagination, which the Holy Fathers teach us is a dangerous source of errors and deception: when we start imagining the events in our Lord’s life, we inevitably clothe them in our terms and present them in a way which will be congenial to ourselves; in that way we make ourselves the measure of the events in His life and easily drop those aspects with which we are not comfortable. 

The Holy Fathers teach us, rather, always to be wary of the imagination, learning to control it, not to develop it. Further, the use of the imagination while reciting the words of the Hail Mary means that one is not attending to the words of the prayer. Rather than aiding concentration on the words addressed to God and the saints in prayer, this method actually encourages distraction and wandering thoughts by concealing them in the guise of “meditations” on the events of sacred history, as imagined by the person praying. Thus, the Roman Catholic Rosary is quite different in use and intent from the Orthodox prayer-rope from which it developed, whose purpose is to help the person praying to focus more intently on the words of his prayer and to keep his thoughts from wandering. The Rosary is obviously an unacceptable devotional practice, and Orthodox Christians must be wary of an apparition which teaches and encourages it. 


In its appearances, the apparition taught doctrines related to the afterlife which are not acceptable to Orthodox Christianity. Several times it referred to Purgatory, the intermediate state of limited suffering between Heaven and Hell, and said that one person about whom the children asked would be in Purgatory until the end of the world. Orthodoxy completely rejects any such intermediate state, since the doctrine of Purgatory appears nowhere in the Apostolic tradition and, in fact, denies the full efficacy of the free gift of grace and adoption which Christ offered us through His Incarnation, death, and resurrection. 

According to Roman Catholic teaching, men must suffer to pay their debts to God for sins which have been forgiven by Him, as if any suffering we endure could actually make a payment, were it necessary at all, and as if God’s forgiveness were somehow deficient. God’s mercy and forgiveness are boundless. If suffering is good for us, it is so exactly in the same sense as training is good for athletes, as fasting is good for the obese and gluttonous, as self-reproach is good for those who are prone to anger. God does not need these things, we do. Nor does He demand this “payment,” since His forgiveness and grace are free - after all, the word “grace” itself means “free gift.” 

Value of Human Works 

The apparition also taught that one’s suffering in this life could obtain salvation for others. In The first appearance, it asked the children if they would “bear all the suffering (God) wills for you, as an act of reparation for the sins by which He is offended, and of supplication for the conversion of sinners.”13 And in the fourth appearance, the apparition told the children, “Pray, pray very much, and make sacrifices for sinners. For many souls go to Hell because there is no one to make sacrifices for them.”14 

In this way, too, our Lord’s offering for us is denigrated by the idea that our suffering somehow supplies for others that which is missing in His offering of Himself. This is a blasphemous delusion, showing Satanic pride in thinking that we can save others by our prayers and suffering, thereby putting ourselves in the place of Christ. St. Peter of Damascus expresses the Orthodox understanding when he says, “We do not dare to entreat on behalf of all, but only for our own sins.”15 At best, we can entreat God’s grace for them to respond with repentance. 

The Conversion of Russia 

The subject of the conversion of Russia occasions the greatest interest in Fatima among Orthodox Christians, but it is also one which is often misunderstood. It is often assumed that this message was the only one given at Fatima, or at least the most important; in fact, it is one part of one of the six appearances, and is presented not for the sake of Russia, but to reinforce a number of Roman Catholic dogmas. Further, early accounts of Fatima state only that the apparition told people to pray for the conversion of the world. 

Lucia had a vision in 1927 in which she was told to ask for the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary. In another vision in 1929, she was told to reveal the first secret, allegedly given to her in 1917, which was that people should pray for the conversion specifically of Russia.16 Normally it is assumed that the apparition was speaking of the conversion of Russia to the Roman Catholic faith. 

One commentator on this subject says that when speaking of a state, one cannot think of it as joining a given church; rather, he thinks “conversion” here means that the Soviet State will stop fighting against religion. He asks if the term could refer to the “return of the dissident ‘Russian Church’ to Catholic Union” and replies that, in his opinion, this “cannot be deduced with logical necessity from the text of the Message.”17 Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the understanding of the vast majority of Roman Catholics, the Fatima message means nothing else but Russia’s conversion to Roman Catholicism. This is precisely the interpretation which has been taught in parochial schools. Even if we grant that the Fatima message does not necessarily imply the conversion of Russia to Roman Catholicism, we still must ask what means are proposed by the apparition for Russia’s conversion from atheism to belief in God. 

Two basic requirements are presented by the apparition in the report of the third appearance: “I shall come to ask for the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of Reparation on the First Saturday. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted...The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and she will be converted...”18 Thus, the two necessary conditions for the conversion of Russia are that the Pope consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and that Catholics all over the world make the First Saturday communions. Obviously, neither of these conditions is in any way acceptable to Orthodox Christians, but to make this clearer, let us examine in more detail the implications of both of them. 

Papal Claims - Again! 

The Pope, the Bishop of Rome, claims to be chief of all the bishops of the Christian Church, but his claims go far beyond this. He also is said to have jurisdiction over all other bishops, to be Christ’s special representative on earth in both religious and temporal affairs, and to be guaranteed not to err when he makes formal pronouncements about matters of faith or morals. Statements of the Popes themselves make this abundantly clear. While Orthodox would be willing to recognize the Pope as “first among equals” among all the bishops of the world in an Orthodox context, they reject the rest of his claims. The apparition demanded that he be the one to consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, thereby implicitly accepting his claims to be the supreme head of the Christian Church. 

First Saturdays 

The full significance of the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays is not made clear in the actual Fatima manifestations, but Sister Lucia, the only one of the children to survive to adulthood, claimed to have received a special revelation in 1925 which provided more information about the First Saturdays. Actually, she not only received many later revelations, but there were also several earlier manifestations to her and a group of children in 1915 and 1916. At this time they saw an angel, sometimes called the Angel of Peace or the Angel of Portugal, and received communion from him one time.19 

On the occasion of the revelation in 1925, the so-called “Great Promise” was given; this promise states: “I promise to assist at the hour of death with the graces necessary for salvation all those who, on the first Saturday of five consecutive months, go to confession, receive Holy Communion, say the Rosary, and keep me company for fifteen minutes while meditating on the fifteen mysteries of the Rosary, with the object of making reparation to me.”20 This promise clarifies the Communion of Reparation of the First Saturdays which was mentioned in the third appearance in July, 1917. 

Now first of all, this reception of communion in Roman Catholic churhes is one of the two conditions for the conversion of Russia; but this is obviously unacceptable for Orthodox Christians. Further, the idea that the Theotokos could give one at death “all the graces necessary for salvation” entails a teaching which is completely foreign and contrary to Orthodoxy. The view of grace presented here is the very materialistic one associated with indulgences, as if grace were a commodity which could be stored and distributed; but grace is God’s uncreated energy at work in the world, not something that can be handed out by the saints in exchange for our good works. 

Our calling as Christians is to follow our Lord Jesus Christ in obedience to God in every aspect and moment of our lives; that obedience, possible only with the grace which comes from the new life in Christ which we receive in Baptism, brings us into a new relationship to God. To think that one could purchase one’s salvation by performing a few pious acts on five consecutive Saturdays trivializes the whole Christian life and makes a mockery of our Lord’s life, death, and resurrection. 

In point of fact, the First Saturdays are another instance of the parallelism between the Immaculate Heart of Mary and the Sacred Heart of Jesus. In the seventeenth century Margaret-Mary Alacoque received this promise about the Sacred Heart of Jesus by special revelation: “In the greatness of the mercy of my Heart, its all powerful love will give to all those who receive Communion on the first Friday of every month for nine consecutive months, the grace of full repentance that they shall not die under my displeasure nor without receiving the sacraments, and that my Heart shall be their sure refuge at that last hour.”21 

So, What Was Fatima? 

Having considered the events at Fatima and the doctrines they present from an Orthodox Christian viewpoint, we now must think about the meaning behind them. From its very beginning, the Christian Church has been opposed by the spirit of Antichrist, which has tried to distort our understanding of God and His Son so that we would turn from true worship and fall into Satanic delusion. His ways have been varied, but all have had the goal of distracting men from God. The doctrines presented at Fatima have been rejected by the Orthodox Church as perversions of the Faith leading to idolatry and a carnal attitude toward the Christian life and toward salvation. 

Fatima is actually a part of a sequence of special revelations and appearances over the last 150 years which have tended to reinforce a set of doctrines which the Orthodox Church has always opposed as distorted and, in some case, tending to exalt the Theotokos into an idolatrous near-equality with God. These have included: 

Catherine Laboure. In 1830 she received a pattern for the so-called Miraculous Medal by special revelation. This medal includes support for the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary and of her Immaculate Heart. 

The vision at LaSalette in 1846 when Mary supposedly appeared to two children, a boy of 11 and a girl of 15, and warned them that she was barely able to restrain Christ’s wrath from punishing France severely. 

Bernadette Soubirous. In 1858 the visions at Lourdes promoted the Immaculate Conception of Mary. Bernadette was 14 years old at the time. 

Pontmain. In 1871 Mary supposedly appeared to four children 10-12 years old. 

Beauraing. In 1932-33 visions affirmed the Immaculate Conception of Mary to five children aged 9, 11, 13, 14, and 15 years old. 

Banneaux. In 1933 a 12-year old girl had similar visions of Mary. 

Medjugorje. From 1981 to the present time six children, initially between 11 and 17 years of age, have had daily visions of Mary. These visions have taught the use of the Rosary, the existence of Purgatory, and encourage ecumenism (“...all faiths are pleasing to God”). It should be noted that the local Roman Catholic hierarchy has disavowed these visions and considers them a delusion. 

An interesting observation about all these visions except for the first is that they all occurred to children around the age of puberty. Oddly enough, poltergeist phenomena are observed to occur most commonly with children of the same age. It seems as if there is something in the spiritual life of children, especially girls, around this age that makes them easy victims of demonic attack and delusion. In 1987 a plastic statue of the Virgin Mary began exuding oil, but only in the presence of a 10-year old Arab girl. Of course, the fact that a statue is involved makes this false and unacceptable for Orthodox Christians, since we are forbidden to use statues in any case. 

The Real Meaning Of Fatima 

For Orthodox Christians    Fatima was a particularly powerful attack on the Orthodox Church, since it introduced the subject of the conversion of Russia, thereby appealing to many Russian Orthodox Christians, distressed by the enslavement of their homeland. But it is absolutely impossible to separate the “prophecies” about Russia from the total context of the visions. The purpose of Fatima was to present and reinforce a number of distinctively Roman Catholic doctrines which are absolutely foreign to the Orthodox Church. 

In the events at Fatima we see once again a manifestation of a profound error which has been repeated throughout much of Christian history: the confusion of “religious” experiences with Divine Revelation. Many visions and prophecies have occurred throughout history in all religions; in some cases the prophecies have come true, the visions have performed miracles and healings. But these prophecies and miracles do not testify to the truth of the doctrines taught in these experiences, since often they come from demonic action. The Scriptures teach us clearly that any prophecy or vision must be evaluated on the basis of the doctrine it teaches: 

“And if there arise among you a prophet, or one who dreams a dream, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder which he spoke to you comes to pass, and he says, ‘Let us go and serve other gods, which ye know not’; ye shall not hearken to the words of that prophet, or the dreamer of that dream, because the Lord your God tries you, to know whether you love your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Ye shall follow the Lord your God, and fear Him, and ye shall hear His voice, and attach yourself to Him. And that prophet or that dreamer of a dream, shall die; for he has spoken to you to make you err from the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, Who redeemed you from bondage; to thrust you out of the way which the Lord your God commanded you to walk in; so shall ye abolish the evil from among you.” (Deut. 13:1-5) 

We must be wary of anyone who claims to speak in the Name of God, even if it be a saint or an angel, as the Apostle Paul teaches us: 

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we have preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! As we have already said, so now I say again: if anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than that which you accepted, let him be anathema!” (Gal. 1:8-9) 

Similarly, the Holy Fathers teach us to distrust all visions and wonders. Thus St. Diadochus says: 

“If light or some fiery form should be seen by one pursuing the spiritual way, he should not on any account accept such a vision: it is an obvious deceit of the enemy. Many indeed have had this experience and, in their ignorance, have turned aside from the way of truth. We ourselves know, however, that so long as we dwell in this corruptible body, ‘we are absent from the Lord’ (II Cor. 5:6) - that is to say, we know that we cannot visibly see either God Himself or any of His celestial wonders.” - Philokalia, Vol. 1, London, 1979, pp. 263-264. 

St Peter of Damascus amplifies this teaching further: 

“When the devil saw Christ descending in His extreme goodness to the holy martyrs and revered fathers, appearing either in Himself or through angels or in some other ineffable form, he began to fabricate numerous delusions in order to destroy people. It is on account of this that the fathers, in their discrimination, wrote that one should not pay any attention to such diabolic manifestations, whether they come through images, or light, or fire, or some other deceptive form...If we accept such delusion, (the devil) makes the intellect, in its utter ignorance and self-conceit, depict various shapes or colours so that we think that this is a manifestation of God or of an angel. Often in sleep, or to our senses when awake, he shows us demons that are apparently defeated. In short, he does all he can to destroy us by making us succumb to these delusions.”Philocalia, Vol. 3, p. 81. 

Any time we make emotional “religious experiences” or various signs and wonders the criterion of our faith, we thereby open the floodgates to every sort of delusion. If this be the standard of our faith, we must acknowledge the validity of any experience from which someone gains a “religious” sensation: the ancient ritual prostitution at pagan temples; the frenzied worship of Bacchus; the Moslem dervishes and followers of the Ayatollah Khomeini and his successors. We can no longer distinguish between God’s truth and the devil’s errors. But, in fact, all religious experiences must be tested for agreement with the Orthodox Faith before they can be accepted as genuinely from God. The Orthodox Faith is the objective criterion which permits us to separate true experiences of God from delusions of the evil one. All of our religious experiences must be verified by the Faith; the Faith is not proved by them. 


1 “The Catholics had formed a small ecumenical seminar in Leningrad...From our Catholic friends we learned for the first time of the appearance of the Mother of God at Fatima and what she had said there about Russia.” Talking About God Is Dangerous, New York, 1987, pp. 52-53. See also p. 103. 

2 Carol, M.P., The Cult Of The Virgin Mary, Princeton, 1986, p. 177 

3 Kondor, Louis, ed., Fatima in Lucia’s Own Words, Cambridge, Mass., 1963, p. 165 

4 Ibid., p. 172. Actually only Lucia saw Our Lady of Dolours and Our Lady of Carmel in October. The Children did not all always see the same things at the same time and Francisco often did not hear the words of the apparition. Cf. Carroll, op. cit., p. 127. 

5 Ibid., p. 163. 

6 See Prestige, G.L., Fathers and Heretics, London, 1963, pp. 180-207 for a discussion of this development. 

7 A similar tendency to direct devotion to various “parts” of the Lord Jesus Christ, e.g., His soul, hands, face, developed in the first half of the twentieth century, but was checked by Rome itself as unhealthy. Cf. Prestige, op. cit. p. 200. 

8 Against the Antidicomarianites, Migne, PG 42, 736 B, CD. Cf also St. John of Damascus, On Heresies, New York, 1958, p. 131. 

9 McGrath, Rt. Rev. William C., Fatima Or World Suicide, Scarboro, Ontario, Canada, 1950, p. 36. 

10 Kondor, op. cit. p. 167. 

11 Barthas, C.C., Our Lady of Light, p. 14. 

12 Kondor, op. cit., p. 165. 

13 Ibid., p. 161. 

14 McGrath, op. cit. p. 136. 

15 Philokalia, Vol. 3, London, 1984, p. 200. 

16 Carroll, op. cit., p. 136. 

17 Schweigel, G.M., Fatima e la Conversione Della Russia, Rom, 1957, p. 10. 

18 Kondor, op. cit. p. 167. 

19 Ibid., pp. 154-158. 

20 McGrath, op. cit. pp. 90-91. 

21 Attwater, D., A Catholic Dictionary, New York, 1941, p. 363.