Akita Confirms Fatima Message…

Akita Confirms Fatima Message…

Update:  please note that – following concerns highlighted by our blogger, Athanasius below, on  February 21, 2016 at 3:00 am – we no longer believe that the Akita claims are credible.  Unfortunately, the video has been removed from YouTube; nevertheless, the points made by Athanasius stand alone. 

Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) on the Third Secret

Only months after Bishop Ito approved the Akita apparitions, Cardinal Ratzinger was interviewed on November 11, 1984 by Jesus magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. Within this 1984 interview  – entitled “Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis” – published to millions in Italy, Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that he had read the Third Secret and that it speaks of “The dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore the world, and also the importance of the last times.” Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Third Secret had been suppressed since 1960 “to avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism.” He also said, “But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions….” Howard Dee, former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, stated that “Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.” (Inside the Vatican magazine, 1998) Therefore, when Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in his interview that the Third Secret corresponds to “other Marian apparitions,” this reference includes the Akita apparitions. But in a subsequent publication of the same Ratzinger interview in the book The Ratzinger Report, this reference:  “But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions….” was mysteriously deleted.  Had the Cardinal said too much?

How are the Fatima and the Akita apparitions similar?  Note that Cardinal Ratzinger had received a dossier of information on the Akita apparitions prior to his interview with Jesus magazine, so this information was fresh in his mind. Perhaps the following line from the Akita apparitions is the key: “The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops.”

Comments invited… 

Comments (25)

  • Prognosticum

    Sorry, but could there be some confusion here? My understanding is that what known in English as ‘The Ratzinger Report’ was originally published in Italian in 1985 as ‘Rapporto sulla fede.’ It is the fruit of an interview which the then Cardinal Ratzinger gave to the (excellent) Italian journalist Vittorio Messori over three days, beginning on 15 August 2014. I did not know that it incorporated a later interview which the Cardinal is described here as having given to the arch-liberal ‘Jesus’. Can the Editor confirm this?

    Also, and just for the record, Jesus is not published by the Daughters of St Paul, but by Periodici San Paolo which is run by the male congregation Società di San Paolo founded by Fr. Giacomo Alberione. It has, thankfully, a very small circulation which owners estimate to be in the region of thirty-five thousand per month.

    I know very little about Akita, but now I want to know more.

    February 20, 2016 at 2:21 pm
    • editor


      Click here to read an article on the Fatima Center website which may be of help in clearing up any confusion.

      I believe the Pauline Sisters and the male congregation were both founded by Fr James (Giacomo) Alberione

      If you want to learn more about Akita, you could do no better than to begin by watching the video above.

      February 20, 2016 at 3:05 pm
  • Misha

    Surely the latest screed from Federico Lombardi 19 th Feb ( yesterday ) is part of this ? As on Lifesitenews yesterday regarding Zika virus….ditto SSPX USA and Catholic News Agency. Lombardi confirms truth of Belgian Congo nuns.SSPX calls it a myth and Francis and Lombardi state it is true, quoting Blessed Pope Paul !! This is the biggest singular issue to discuss. Check it out. Look at headlines on newspapers. Neo Catholics now think contraception is a personal conscience issue thanks to Pope Francis and Fr Lombardi ! Can’t believe you are not running this thread and dealing with Donald Trump debacle.

    Editor: the Donald Trump “debacle” was in the news some time before we heard of the Zika virus/contraception comments, and that was noted in the comments on our Donald Trump thread, as soon as it was reported. However, it’s no small thing for a Pope to publicly announce that someone is not a Christian due to a difference in politics. Now, if he’d pointed out that nobody is truly Christian outside the Catholic Church, that would have been a different matter, and if we’re patient Pope Francis will spell that out – the day after Hell freezes over!

    And for the record, many diocesan Catholics have long thought that contraception is a matter for their own desires, masquerading as conscience. It’s not really front page news any more – especially in this pontificate where the real headlines would be made if Papa Francis ever spoke a Catholic word, so to speak!

    February 20, 2016 at 2:43 pm
    • Misha

      Seriously? The use of abortifacient drugs as endorsed by Bishops of England and Wales for rape victims?

      Ditto UCCB in USA called ‘ Evolved Thinking ‘ and we are concerned about Donald Trump.

      Editor: please don’t tell me what topics to post – you have a darn cheek with this “we are concerned about…” Who the heck ARE you? I don’t recall you contributing to any of our topics until now and you are not contributing at all. You’ve come on here, all guns blazing, to defend Catholic teaching on contraception as if it’s all of a sudden been attacked by the English bishops – who are all for it, have been for years, and not just for rape victims as you seem to mistakenly believe. Check out this comment from an English cardinal before even the new pope was elected. Gerragrip. You’re way behind the times. Now, if you wish to discuss contraception, post a comment on our General Discussion thread. This one is about Akita/Fatima.

      February 20, 2016 at 4:04 pm
  • westminsterfly

    I saw this video a while back and forwarded it to others. It is very interesting. One of the people I forwarded it to said that he had heard from a priest that Sister Agnes Sasagawa had left the community at Akita. Whether that means left that particular branch of the community (I think they are called Handmaids of the Eucharist) or left it totally, I don’t know. It may not even be true. I’ve tried internet searches to see if I could find out any information regarding her status or whereabouts, but have drawn a blank. She appears to be dressed as a religious in this recently made video, so I don’t think she has left the community. If anyone has any info, please can they post it here. thanks

    February 20, 2016 at 3:27 pm
    • Margaret Mary

      Westminster Fly,

      It’s not unusual for nuns to be moved between houses of the Order. I wouldn’t think anything of that. If she’d left the Order altogether it would surely have made the news.

      February 20, 2016 at 8:53 pm
  • Theresa Rose

    That video is riveting indeed. True Fatima and Akita go hand in hand. By chance, I discovered that today is the anniversary of the death of Jacinta, who died on the 20th February 1920. Jacinta was the youngest of the three children to whom Our Lady appeared at Fatima.

    It is apt that this thread Akita confirms Fatima appears today.

    February 20, 2016 at 7:48 pm
  • Margaret Mary

    A friend is saying that Akita can’t be approved until the Vatican makes an announcement, but I thought it was up to the local bishop, does anyone know for sure?

    February 20, 2016 at 8:51 pm
    • Nicky

      Margaret Mary,

      It is the local bishop who approves apparitions. They will consult the Holy See, as did the Bishop over Akita, but it’s not usual for the Vatican to issue declarations about private apparitions. There’s hundreds of them being alleged all the time, the Vatican couldn’t possibly keep up!

      It’s only because of the unique-ness of Fatima, that the Popes spoke about it, and only because the disobedient Medjugorje “seers” wouldn’t accept the authority of the local bishop who called it out, and the fanatical followers who spread it through their magazines and organising pilgrimages etc. that the Vatican was forced to set up a Commission. They bottled out of openly calling it a false apparition but that is already on the record thanks to the Bishops of Mostar.

      I think Akita is true because we have seen it coming true even in recent months, with cardinals opposing cardinals and bishops opposing bishops, for example, at the recent Synod.

      Great video.

      February 20, 2016 at 11:32 pm
    • Lily

      Margaret Mary,

      I took the following from the EWTN website and although it quotes the Bishop’s Pastoral Letter as “awaiting the Holy See’s definitive judgement on the matter” it states clearly that the Bishop is the competent authority. I am not sure if the line about “awaiting the Holy See etc” is a translation issue, but it has always been the local bishop who made the judgment about whether a private revelation is approved or not.

      History of Ecclesiastical Approval

      February 27, 1978 — Pope Paul VI approves the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s Norms of the Congregation for Proceeding in Judging Alleged Apparitions and Revelations. These norms provide the criteria for evaluating such phenomenon and establish the local Ordinary as the competent authority to do so. They also provide that regional or national episcopal conferences may intervene (as has occurred with regards to Medjugorje) if warranted, as may the Holy See.

      April 22, 1984 — After eight years of investigations, Rev. John Shojiro Ito, Bishop of Niigata, Japan, recognizes “the supernatural character of a series of mysterious events concerning the statue of the Holy Mother Mary” and authorizes “throughout the entire diocese, the veneration of the Holy Mother of Akita, while awaiting that the Holy See publishes definitive judgment on this matter.”

      Letter of Bishop Ito recognizing the events at Akita

      [EWTN: Despite claims that Cardinal Ratzinger gave definitive approval to Akita in 1988, no ecclesiastical decree appears to exist, as certainly would in such a case. However, some individuals, such as former Ambassador of the Phillipines to the Holy See, Mr. Howard Dee, have stated that they were given private assurances by Cardinal Ratzinger of the authenticity of Akita. In any case, in keeping with the current norms, given the absence of a repudiation of Bp. Ito’s decision by his successors, or by higher authority, the events of Akita continue to have ecclesiastical approval.]

      Revised: November 2011

      February 20, 2016 at 11:45 pm
  • Athanasius

    I watched the introductory video for this thread and I have to say that a few things left me a little concerned about Akita.

    The first of these was Sister Agnes’ twin reference to an accompanying angel in prayer as “she”. I have never heard of an angel being refered to as “she”. The other thing that struck me was how modernist the chapel and nuns look, and how unbecoming the image of Our Lady is. There was no hint of a restoration of Tradition there, as I would have expected given the warnings of Our Lady about the apostasy taking place in the Church. It’s almost as if the post-conciliar reform is not seen as the principle cause of this apostasy.

    Fatima indicates the truth of things in the opening line of the text of the Third Secret: “In Portugal the dogmas of the Faith will be preserved…etc.”, indicating that the chastisement is primarily spiritual in nature. Akita mentions apostasy but seems to focus more on a terrible material chastisement of the world by God, to the extent that few will be left and the living will envy the dead. This seems at odds with Our Lady’s Fatima promise that in the end her Immaculate Heart will triumph and a time of peace will be granted to the world. I’m not saying that a Third World War will not happen when there is every liklihood at this time that such a catastrophe may well happen soon. But even if that comes about, the punishment of wars and other natural disasters belongs properly to the Second part of the Fatima Secret, not the Third part. The Third Secret of Fatima is exclusively a supernatural chastisement afflicting the Church and the world, there is no WWIII in there.

    The fall of many consecrated Catholic souls and billions of other souls worldwide, the result of the present universal apostasy from God, is by far a greater chastisement than any mere material annihilation. So why is emphasis placed more on material rather than spiritual loss at Akita? I was also a bit concerned by the claim that if the sins of men continue there will be no more forgiveness. But isn’t God infinitely merciful, always desiring to forgive?

    Other things that made me a little uncomfortable were 1. The local Ordinary’s apparent believe in the apparitions before his investigation even began. Bishops normally start out with the opposite view. 2. The three different blood groups identified by scientists from three separate examinations of the tears. 3. The mark of the Cross appearing on only one hand of Sister Agnes, the left hand. This is not the usual manifestation of the stigmata. 4. Sister Agnes siad at one point that people should pay less attention to the “form” of prayers and concentrate more on content. Content is of course very important, but the form of our Catholic prayers is also essential. We all see the bitter fruits of changes to the form of the sacred liturgy, the Church’s highest and most perfect prayer, the Sacrifice of Our Lord. There were one or two other anomolies that I’ll pass on right now.

    Suffice it to say I have been left very uncertain about Akita. The people interviewed, including Sister Agnes, seemed sincere enough, and nothing was said that was obviously contradictory of Catholic doctrine, yet I have problems believing it. I have no such problems with Fatima and Quito, but Akita troubles me. I think the Vatican should investigate Akita and give a definitive decision on it.

    February 21, 2016 at 3:00 am
    • Michaela

      I must have watched the video without taking as much note of the detail as you’ve obviously done. Those things are a bit concerning – although St Alphonsus Liguori in one of his sermons warned about God’s forgiveness being limited. https://www.olrl.org/snt_docs/num_sins.shtml

      I always think of Akita as being a supplement to Fatima and so there is an emphasis on the chastisement through war of the world, where Fatima stressed the crisis in the Church, but also the material chastisement. I think the two go together, body and soul are in danger due to this crisis of faith.

      I have no answer to the other things, such as the blood groups and stigmata but I agree it does raise questions about the truth of Akita.

      February 21, 2016 at 8:37 am
    • editor


      I have today received the latest Association of Catholic Family News bulletins via email and one of their items is… your warning comment! I wrote to the editor to alert him to your concerns (which immediately became all of our concerns) and he has published your comment. Click here to read it.

      Well done CFNews – that’s what I call a reliable source. Even if they (occasionally) appear to get it wrong, they are not slow to publish a correction.

      Brilliant, Athanasius!

      February 28, 2016 at 3:35 pm
      • Athanasius


        Well done, you, for sending my Akita comment to CFNews. I’m pleased to see that the editor has published it. As you say, it is the classic sign of a reliable source when they are willing to admit that perhaps a mistake was made. In these confusing times we all have to make the occasional admittance to a mistake. Thanks again for sending it.

        February 28, 2016 at 5:54 pm
  • Athanasius

    Sorry, a number of typos in that previous comment. It’s late and I was typing too fast!

    February 21, 2016 at 3:05 am
  • Athanasius


    Yes, i just found too many questionable things for my liking. As I said before, I’m not saying it isn’t true just that there are anomolies that need answers. Until then, I’ll stick with Fatima and Quito, the two apparitions and prophecies that really do compliment each other and are beyond all doubt.


    I just wondered if you watched this Akita video before posting the thread, or where you like most of us who’ve read about it and just assumed it was all perfectly good and orthodox? I’ve read about Akita in the past and for that reason almost didn’t watch the video. I’m glad now that I did.

    February 21, 2016 at 11:52 am
    • editor


      I have to, shamefully, confess that I didn’t actually watch the video before posting it – in fact, I’ve still not watched it. As you say, having already read about Akita and accepted it as an approved apparition, I didn’t think twice about posting it unseen.

      Then, too, I presumed it was orthodox because it came to me from two normally wholly reliable sources – one being Catholic Family News. I receive their bulletins regularly, and this video was on the list recently.

      Today is the first anniversary of my beloved mother’s death, so I’ve had family arrangements to mark the anniversary taking up most of the day. However, I’ll do my best to view it asap, although I have no doubt that your critique is accurate. I’m very glad that you did view the film, and are, thus, able to keep us on our toes. Thank you for that!

      February 21, 2016 at 4:05 pm
  • westminsterfly

    While, on the whole, I am inclined to believe in Akita, the thing that has mainly perplexed me is that the Akita Statue is an exact copy of the image of the patently false ‘Our Lady of All Nations’ apparitions (Ida Peerdeman – Amsterdam), which, was condemned for years by the Church until a bishop gave it local approval some years back – even though the CDF had to correct the alleged prayer that ‘Our Lady’ had supposedly given Ida Peerdeman. The Amsterdam messages are nothing like Akita, Fatima or Quito. But it has always struck me as odd that the Akita statue was modelled on the Amsterdam image.

    February 21, 2016 at 2:41 pm
    • editor

      Westminster Fly,

      I’ve no recollection of ever seeing the Akita statue but, in my opinion, it is not an attractive image of Our Lady at all.

      February 21, 2016 at 4:06 pm
  • Athanasius


    I can’t fault you for just posting the video without watching it since, as you say, the Akita message has always been viewed as safe. Now that Westminsterfly has raised also the matter of the image of Our Lady, my doubts have just increased. I knew I had seen that image somewhere before and he has just reminded me where it was, the false “Our Lady of the Nations” apparitions. Besides that, I do not see much of a link between Akita and Fatima at all, other than a promotion of the holy rosary. That’s one thing that stands in favour of Akita. The other is a good Catholic promotion of devotion to Our Lord in His Real Presence. As I said, there are pros and cons with Akita but I prefer straight forward, no doubt approved apparitions and that’s why I’m giving this one a miss.

    February 21, 2016 at 6:46 pm
  • RCA Victor

    Athanasius’ analysis of the Akita video is certainly disturbing. Here’s another question I have, not about the video but about Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement (“But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions….”)

    So if the Third Secret was suppressed to “avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism,” yet the Third Secret is essentially repeated in/confirmed by other Marian apparitions which are, in fact, known, then why not go ahead and release the Third Secret? If, by comparison to other Marian apparitions, it is no longer a big shocking deal, then….

    Of course, Cardinal Ratzinger was involved up to his elbows in the infamous Bertone deception about the Third Secret….

    February 21, 2016 at 9:01 pm
  • Athanasius

    RCA Victor

    I remember Fr. Gruner (R.I.P.) saying that for some at the higher levels in the Church certain parts of the Third Secret were considered not to be authentic. This of course was the mindset of the infamous Fr. Dhanis, whose thesis undermining Fatima came to be the accepted version of events by the Modernist hierarchy, because it suited their conciliar reform programme. Cardinal Ratzinger was part of that programme and a subscriber to the Dhanis theory. That’s why in 2000 he could say, in all honesty as far as he was concerned, that the entire Third Secret had been revealed. The text beginning with the sentence “In Portugal…etc., was not considered to be an authentic part of the Third Secret. The Dhanis proposal was that Sister Lucy had made that part up. Appalling, I know, but that’s what the liberal establishment claimed, and continues to claim, because the text of the Third Secret directly links the Second Vatican Council and its reform with the apostasy. Maybe that will help shed some light on the situation.

    February 21, 2016 at 10:05 pm
    • westminsterfly

      Yes, spot on – astoundingly, Fr Dhanis was the only ‘theologian’ to be quoted in the misleading 2000 Vatican document ‘The Message of Fatima’. It was he who developed the Fatima 1 (ie that which Sr Lucia said which can be believed) and Fatima 2 (ie that which Sr Lucia said which should be rejected as false) theories, which persist to this day. The whole scandal was catalogued in detail in Frere Michel’s trilogy ‘The Whole Truth About Fatima’.
      As for Akita, there are some things in its favour. One thing that comes to mind is that after the events, the whole community returned to receiving Holy Communion on the tongue, whereas they had previously received on the hand. I read a book about Akita a while back, which, along with the bishop’s approval, led me to think that it could well be authentic. But apparitions are a minefield these days. I’ve got doubts about several which have been approved (e.g. Divine Mercy, Laus, Our Lady of All Nations, Kibeho, Betania etc etc)

      February 22, 2016 at 9:22 am
  • Athanasius


    And what Order did Fr. Dhanis belong to? Yes, you got it, the Jesuit Order! The conciliar revolution is at source a Jesuit revolution. Jesuits have been, and remain, the primary peddlers of Modernism.

    February 22, 2016 at 4:02 pm
  • crofterlady

    The first thing that popped into my mind whilst watching the Akita video was: why didn’t Our Lady visit a traditional order of nuns? Looking at the chapel, the altar and the seating position of the bishop showed it to be a modernist outfit.

    Also, the blood groups test results were shaky at best.

    The tears had a phoney ring to it and the statue was ugly.

    February 22, 2016 at 4:21 pm

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: