Chapter 2: Staging-Posts In An Attack

In fact the apparition coincided with Stalin’s persecution of the Catholic Church and Russian Orthodox Church (ROC). We can tell this was the original object of the consecration from a statement by Sr Lucia in 1930: ‘the good God promises to make an end of the persecution in Russia if the Holy Father deigns to make and orders to be made by all the Bishops of the world, the solemn act of the consecration of Russia’ (letter to Fr Gonçalvez quoted in ‘The Divine Impatience’: Immaculate Heart Publications, USA, 2000). As we will reveal, as a result of this persecution, Stalin was able to subordinate the ROC and use it in propaganda, and it was later used to take control of the ecumenical movement, the World Council of Churches and its subsidiaries in Britain. The danger would come when the Catholic Church was enlisted into that same organization.


Stalin’s persecution put intense pressure on ROC leaders. They could either defend the Church or submit to tyranny. The stark choice was martyrdom, or apostasy (abandonment of the faith.) It has been estimated that by 1941 the hierarchy had been reduced from 130 to 28, their clergy from 50,000 to 500.1
But while others paid the price for defending the faith, Metropolitan Sergei Stragorodsky (1861 – 1944) was surprisingly released from prison in 1927 and was soon afterwards acknowledged by the Government as Administrator of the Church of Moscow. His subsequent co-operation with the Soviet State caused sharp division in the Church, and many bishops and priests still in prison considered that the hierarchy had ‘sold out’ to the atheistic State. In April 1929 came the oppressive ‘Laws of Religious Association’ followed by Stalin’s outright persecution.2 During this time, Sergei ‘publicly denied that the Church was being persecuted and became a subservient supporter of Soviet propaganda.’3 He continued as head of the Church throughout these events until his death in 1944. The events of 1927 and 1929 were of great relevance to what followed. Sergei presided over a church which was subjected to a persecution more severe than any before, in which all parishes were under State control. Stalin’s Russia was one in which it became a crime to defend the Christian Church in any manner whatsoever. But as Cardinal Mindszenty wrote – ‘A cloak of silence was now spread over the period of persecution and the martyrs it had produced…”4 Objectively speaking, Sergei’s failure to defend the Church under such circumstances, by his blood if need be, demonstrated that the seeds of apostasy had become established in that Church; which was soon to become a tool in the hands of the Soviet dictator.


In 1917 Our Lady had prophesied that a Second World War would break out if her requests were ignored. During that War, the seeds of apostasy sown in 1929 took root and became even more firmly established. Stalin was taken unawares by the German invasion, which made vast inroads into Russian territory. In this dire emergency, Metropolitan Sergei called on the nation to rally behind Stalin: ‘God’s chosen leader’ in saving ‘Holy Mother Russia’. In a pastoral letter he ‘called on all believers to join the struggle for the salvation of the motherland’.5 Stalin then lifted the restrictions on the Orthodox Church so that it could promote the war as a crusade and inspire patriotic resistance. The Church still had great support from the people – who followed its lead.

After the Battle of Stalingrad in 1943, the Germans were forced into retreat. Stalin now realised that victory over Germany opened up the prospect of expanding his territories into Eastern Europe. If he could persuade his allies to limit their invasions of Europe to a single ‘steam-rollering’ attack through France, it would leave him free to occupy Eastern Europe. But Roosevelt had political reasons for delaying that invasion. For unlike Stalin, he was politically accountable, and he know that in the invasion, America would bear heavy casualties – thousands of men were bound to die, so that committing America to the invasion without an effective mandate – would be political suicide, particularly with an Presidential election due in November 1944. Something had to be done to persuade the American people that responding to Stalin’s call did not imply that America would contribute to the spread of communism. At this juncture Stalin decided on a plan to win support from his allies by pretending to liberate the Orthodox Church. On 4th September 1943, he summoned Sergei and offered the Church new privileges in return for its support for State policy.6 Sergei agreed, and so Stalin ‘authorized’ the ROC to elect Sergei as Patriarch7 – he was enthroned on 12th September 1943 in Moscow Cathedral8 (note the extreme haste..) Meanwhile Sergei had cabled the Archbishop of Canterbury in London and invited him to send a delegation to Moscow – to mark the event. So on September 15th the Archbishop of York Dr Cyril Garbett left with a message of greetings from the Church of England.9 On arrival he was feted as a dignitary, taken to the customary visit to the Bolshoi Ballet, and given every mark of respect. At the showpiece climax of the visit, Sergei celebrated the Orthodox Liturgy in Moscow Cathedral, accompanied in the sanctuary by Dr Garbett, vested in his Anglican Cope and Mitre.10

These events received favourable publicity and were interpreted as a sign that Russia had changed. On his return Dr Garbett toured Britain and the USA announcing there was ‘complete freedom of religious worship in the USSR’.11 The effect on America’s commitment to the invasion of France was decisive, for shortly afterwards at Teheran, Roosevelt announced that commitment. Stalin’s biographer reveals the sequence of events.. ‘On 4 September 1943 Stalin decided to receive the church leaders… and the next day, Pravda announced that Metropolitan Sergius would convene the Council of Bishops to elect a new patriarch. Stalin took this step for two reasons. First because he recognised the patriotic value of the church. The second reason was connected with the international situation. He was preparing for the summit conference in Teheran at the end of the year and it was his intention to press again for the opening of a second front… Stalin decided it was time to make a public gesture to demonstrate his loyalty to the church. He believed the West would acknowledge this signal and that it would evoke the desired response’. (the author adds:) “The issue of the second front was at last agreed. On 30th November Roosevelt turned to Stalin… and said: ‘Today Mr Churchill and I have taken the decision on the basis of proposals from our combined staffs: Operation Overlord will begin in May.” 12 emphasized (‘D-Day’ was postponed to June 6th – IC).

Stalin had won the support of his allies by suggesting Russia had changed but, as Cardinal Mindszenty revealed, it was a deception: ‘The news of this reconciliation between the regime and the Church was spread throughout the country and the world… The Communist Party readily shook the proffered hand of the Russian Orthodox Church. Abroad, this concord aroused hopes that the Communists were beginning to accept democratic principles and were on the road to “bourgeois ” respectability. In reality, nothing of the sort was taking place. The Church did not have its internal freedom restored, but was subordinated to a government bureau. In other words, it was straitjacketed into the system of the atheistic state.’ 13 (Further information on this concordat is given in Appendix 1).

Note that a successful consecration of Russia as requested by Our Lady in 1929 would have put to naught the complicity of Sergei and the effects of the 1943 ‘concordat’, which established the Russian Orthodox Church as an arm of state propaganda. The ‘Cambridge Encyclopedia of Russia’ (1982) summarised the effects of the concordat thus: ‘The patriotic role played by the Church was noted: new opportunities were to be found for it in the diplomatic field after the war. Its steadfast support for the state’s foreign policy was the condition of the concordat achieved under Stalin. Such support was offered in the World Peace Council (from 1949), in the Christian Peace Conference (from 1958) and in the World Council of Churches (from 1961).14 (These were ‘front organisations’ and were controlled by the Russians as a means of influencing western institutions). So the significance of 1929 lies not just in the persecution, but also in the emergence of a churchman, Sergei, who in 1943 submitted the ROC to State control for the purposes of propaganda. Surely this explains why Our Lady had declared in June 1929 that ‘the moment has come’? Our Lady also called for the Secret to be revealed by 1960 ‘because then it will become clearer’.15 But by 1960 Sergei’s legacy of 1943 was manifest in the launch of the above ‘fronts’, and the ROC was applying to join the World Council of Churches (WCC). It is evident that these ‘fronts’ had developed from events in Russia from 1929 onwards. What can one conclude from this? As they had developed from the events of 1929, when Our Lady announced ‘the moment has come’, until 1960 – when she said that the Third Secret would ‘become clearer’, is it not reasonable to postulate that the Secret reveals Russia using ‘a spread of errors’ in a strategy against the Church. Support for this hypothesis comes from a unique coincidence of events. In the days before Stalin’s ‘concordat’, Sr Lucia was struck by an unknown illness which so alarmed her Bishop that he urged her to write down the Secret without delay. He met her on 15th September 194316 – the very day Dr Garbett left for Moscow on a propaganda mission. Thus if what we postulate about the Secret is correct, the inception of the above strategy coincided with it being providentially revealed to the Church.


It is clear that ‘Christian Peace Conference’ – CPC – was set up to use the Protestant ecumenical organization of the WCC as a means of spreading support for Soviet aims to the West. When set up in 1958 it comprised ROC and Eastern bloc churchmen, together with Protestant clergy in the West sympathetic to Communism. Significantly its leaders held office in the WCC and its offshoots. Thus ROC Metropolitan Nikodim was both President of CPC and on the WCC Executive17 – while in the West, CPC members held key roles in the British Council of Churches – BCC, and Scottish Churches Council – SCC. Thus the CPC formed an effective link between Russia and the ‘ecumenical movement’. Control over the WCC was also effected through the bloc vote of the Soviet-led churches,18 along with their working majority with Third World churches on the WCC’s Executive.19 Hence its support for Soviet policy by urging the West to disarm, promoting ‘liberation theology’ worldwide 20 funding Marxist terrorists in Africa21 and ignoring the persecution of Christians – in Russia.

All of this begs the question – why was the WCC so apt for Russia’s purposes? I was considering this when I suddenly realized that the aims and practices of the WCC and its subsidiaries correlate with those of another organization. Consider the following – the WCC promotes links between Christian and non-Christian religions – it is syncretist. Similarly Freemasonry attempts to forge links between Christian and non-Christian religions.. As stated the WCC supports the aims of ‘the world communist revolution’. But Freemasonry was the very seed-bed of revolutions in France, Russia and Portugal. Their aim has been to overthrow the Church’s influence for a ‘new world order’. And anticlerical masons in Catholic countries have separated Church and State in order to pass permissive laws on e.g. divorce and homosexuality. The same profile is revealed in Britain by the WCC subsidiary the ‘British Council of Churches’ (BCC) – which supported the liberalization of abortion22 and homosexuality,23 and funded a group ‘Grapevine’ set up to popularize the acceptance of contraceptives among schoolchildren. 24 Thus the evidence suggests the WCC is a Masonic organization. Hence its aptitude to mediate Russia’s on the Church. Note that since Protestant clergy in the West hold office in CPC and WCC offshoots, they are able to direct ecumenism there in a covert way.. I have suggested that in order to provoke an attack on the Church, Russia would first need an intermediary, one with credentials acceptable to the Church. The WCC fulfils that role, and the reason why the leaders of the Catholic Church have been deceived by the WCC et al is because of that very promotion of ‘ecumenism’. In recent years, ‘ecumenism’ has played a predominant role in the Catholic Church, and hence links with the WCC have become increasingly desirable. Many see such links as paving the way towards an eventual ‘Christian unity’. In effect therefore, the Protestant ecumenical organization has presented itself as a ‘bait’. The danger would come when a section of the Church, under the impression it was spearheading ‘unity’, took part in a plan to join this organization.


In 1984 the BCC and Scottish Churches Council, SCC set up a plan to enlist the Catholic Church into their organisations. In Scotland it was set up by the General Secretary of SCC, the Episcopal Canon Kenyon Wright, a member of the ‘front’ CPC (See Appendix 2 for an account of his activities).

The background to these events is as follows. When Pope John Paul II visited Britain in 1982, he was urged by the leaders of the BCC and SCC to allow the Church to join their organisations. He then invited their officials to Rome ‘to continue the discussions’25 – and the outcome was evident in 1984 when the BCC and SCC in conjunction with the Catholic Church in Britain, set up the ‘Inter-Church Process’ 26 which by 1990 had culminated in the Church joining a new set of ecumenical bodies along with Protestant denominations, as a step towards ‘unity’. The relevant body in Scotland ‘Action of Churches Together in Scotland’ – ACTS, was, as stated set up by a member of the Soviet ‘front’ CPC. However the Church’s entry into these bodies (which replace the old BCC and SCC) clearly contravened Pope Pius XI’s injunction against the Church joining the Protestant ecumenical organisation (‘Mortalium Animos,1928) Pius XI saw that it would compromise the Church’s essential witness as the one true Church. Another factor which should have militated against this plan was that, as stated, the aims and practices of the WCC and subsidiaries correlate with those of Freemasonry. Thus as stated the BCC had supported the liberalisation of abortion and condoned the acceptance of homosexuality in Britain. But notwithstanding these facts, the plan was allowed to reach its end-point in 1990 when the Church joined the above new ecumenical organisation. And when the Scottish Bishops met Pope John Paul II at Rome in 1992, he publicly commended their participation in ACTS! 27

And as a result of their joining ACTS in 1990 Scotland’s Bishops have come under pressure to allow intercommunion* and accept Anglican orders, which Pope Leo XIII defined as ‘totally void and utterly worthless’. 28

*for example from the Church of Scotland whose General Assembly in 1992 urged intercommunion; from ACTS (set up by Canon Wright); and in a petition by the Iona Community in 1997 distributed throughout Scotland. But the only way our Bishops could demonstrate their acceptance of such ‘orders’ would be by inviting an Anglican minister to join them in a celebration of the Mass as the main ‘celebrant’. But when he spoke the words of consecration, the bread and wine would be unchanged: they would remain as material objects. But by being worshipped by Catholic clergy, they would constitute an idol. And as this would have displaced Christ from the altar, it would abolish the Mass. So by following a ‘chain of events’ we have arrived at a subversive attack on the Mass. Is this what is revealed by the real Third Secret? How can we verify it? Surely by examining those prophecies which Pope Benedict has revealed, contain the Third Secret?