Tips from Fr. Martin
I enjoy your website very much.
Regarding the alleged "Third Secret of Fatima" you reported on recently, I would like to submit the following:
I transcribed the following, as best I could, from a fascinating 1995 interview with Fr. Malachi Martin, whom I believe had read the true Third Secret (He had stated many times he had to swear an oath to never reveal its contents BEFORE he was allowed to read it). The interviewer asked him about this, and Fr. Martin states:
Time 4:44 - "I read it [the Third Secret], under privilege, and I'm under oath about it, not to reveal the exact details of it. It's not a pleasant document, it's a very unpleasant document to read, and that's where the Fatima thing stands at the present moment ."
At time 5:56, Fr. Martin reveals the Third Secret was: "... a description of miseries, disasters, that would take place unless certain conditions [conditions stipulated in the Third Secret to be carried out by a Pope] were met. The Pope of 1960, John XXIII, refused to meet those conditions, and, therefore, as they say, we are now in the "or" - it was "either/or" [either meet the condition or suffer a chastisement]. So, the chastisements, these disasters predicted in the Third Secret are about to be unloosed on us all according to the Fatima doctrine."
The interviewer then asks him what the Third Secret has to do with the "New World Order".
Fr. Martin says at 6:36: "Well, the Third Secret, interpreted at its face value [meaning it is fairly clear and twisting the meaning to "fit" this or that interpretation would not be necessary], without going into the details of it, implies that the "New World Order", now being installed, and, in fact, between you and me and the Holy Spirit, Michael [interviewer], it is installed in its grand lines now, is definitely something that will not last, and that is unacceptable to God."
8:12: "... The Third Secret implies this [the New World Order] is the very opposite of the Kingdom of God."
Fr. Martin's statements imply that the Third Secret talks about this "New World Order" and/or "Secret Societies," etc. much as Our Lady of Good Success did to Mother Marianna. I find none of this in the alleged Third Secret you recently posted.
I would appreciate your comments on this.
The Editor responds:
I thank you for transcribing parts of this interview and sending them to TIA. I understand that when you ask our comments on it, you are asking how it could harmonize with the April 2010 released version of the Third Secret that TIA posted.
Let me analyze each quote you sent us, checking if and how it matches the Third Secret we have.
I hope these comments attend to your request.
- In the first quote, Fr. Malachi Martin tells us that the document he read "is very unpleasant." The alleged Third Secret recently released could also be qualified as "very unpleasant" since it speaks of a great apostasy in the Church.
- In the second quote, when Fr. Martin suggests that the document refers to disasters as a consequence of the non-fulfillment of Our Lady's request, he seems to be intentionally mixing parts of previous messages of Fatima with parts of the Third Secret. Indeed, it was on a different occasion that Sister Lucy requested, on the order of Our Lady, that the consecration of Russia to her Immaculate Heart should be made by the Pope with all the Bishops of the world. On yet another occasion, she reported that Our Lady said "many nations would be annihilated" unless people converted and turned to prayer and penance. None of these messages, however, were known as the Third Secret. Then, Fr. Martin seems to refer to the Third Secret when he says that it should be opened by 1960.
The Third Secret TIA posted speaks of the destruction of Rome as a great chastisement: "if Rome continues its abomination the city will be destroyed." It also states that that message should be opened by the Pope by 1960. So far, there is no contradiction between Fr. Martin's references and the April document.
- In the third quote Fr. Martin said that the document "implies" the One World Order. We do not know whether he said that just to please the interviewer, or was referring to a specific mention in the Third Secret of a victory of evil in the temporal sphere. If the latter were the case, the released Third Secret does not correspond to this description. If, however, Fr. Martin was using "imply" in a broad sense, one could say that an apostasy in the Church would walk hand in hand with an apostasy in the temporal sphere, which "implies" the establishment of the One World Order.
I Don't Believe It
Regarding the 'supposed' letter of Sr. Lucia regarding the 3rd part of the secret of Fatima:
In Sr. Lucia's 3rd memoir, she quotes Our Lady's words thus: "You have seen Hell where the souls of poor sinners go ... In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc."
Absolutely nothing in the document you posted has a single word quoted from Our Lady as what was given in Sr. Lucia's 3rd Memoir!
Obviously, the 3rd part of the Secret MUST be a continuation of this quote. I find it to be extremely curious that in the document you discovered, there is no logical continuation of that quotation. I smell a fish.
By the way, just because Sr. Lucia mentions the name of Pope Pius IX, does not necessarily mean she would mention Pope John Paul II by name. Logically, if Our Lady meant for the secret to be opened in 1960, she would not have short-circuited her intent by naming the wrong Pope. If I were Pope John XXIII, and I read that She should have used the name of Pope John XXIII, if she really meant for the 3rd part of the secret to be read at that time, which, in Sr. Lucia's words, would be 'more clear' at that time.
I would think that this lack of logic should bother you a little.
The Editor responds:
When you say that "absolutely nothing" in the released document refers to the previous affirmation that "in Portugal dogma of the Faith will always be preserved," you go a little too far. Actually, in the posted document we read: "Because the dogma of the Faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima."
One could easily see in this phrase harmonic concordance with the phrase you mentioned. Then, if this document is authentic, the reasoning of Our Lady would be: "Since the dogma of the Faith is conserved in Portugal and is not conserved in Rome, the latter will be punished and the former rewarded."
I believed this is a valid interpretation. If this is true, your argument attempting to prove the released document to be absurd reveals itself ineffectual.
Doubts like yours on the name of John Paul II were addressed in other answers. You may find them here and here. Nonetheless, we post your opinons for the knowledge of our readers.
Was This Document in Dialect?
Thank you for the opportunity to express our thoughts on the Third Secret. A couple of questions:
1. On August 17, 1959 John XXIII gave the secret to Msgr. Capovilla, who said it was written in Portuguese and several of its expressions were in dialect. "We were not able to understand it all..." Did you find this true when translating the 2010 secret?
2. A big concern is the part that says, If 69 weeks after... Has the secret been announced? Whose authority?
The Editor responds:
In response to your questions:
1. The word Piu written in that text - referring to Pius XII - should actually be Pio in normal Portuguese. It could be a local dialect. I am unaware whether the use of Juan Pablo in Spanish referring to John Paul II could be attributed to some dialect or could be the result of Sister Lucia having lived in Spain for a long time. Perhaps also the word cathedral, referring to the cathedra, the chair of Peter, which I believe was adulterated, may be a word of dialect. It strikes a normal Portuguese reader as a mistake; perhaps it also affected Msgr. Capovilla that way, and he though it was dialect.
2. Regarding the 69 weeks, I cannot help you. I am not good at this kind of calculation. I leave this for persons more inspired than I.
I hope these few words can be of some help.
The Cornerstone Clincher
This morning, I read again Mr. H.S.'s excellent research from his website on the recent Secret, where he analyzes each phrase. And, I was struck by the "cornerstone" issue; that more than anything else convinces me that this is legitimate.
For, as he pointed out, why did JPII do this? What other reason could there be except that he was trying to comply with the Secret? If one were to say that he did it to show deference to Fatima, the Pope most likely would have chosen a dozen simpler ways to do that. But the definite sending of this stone as the Secret specifically requests is not something that comes to mind at all when trying to honor Fatima.
Also, to single out Fatima as the replacement to Rome and, concomitantly, the center of the Catholic Faith: incredibly audacious and bold! I can't fathom any "forger" coming up with that concept.
In Our Lady,
Vatican & 2 Lucys
Regarding the possible and credible evidence that there might have been 2 Sister Lucys, is there any comment from the late Fr. Malachi Martin on this issue?
And have you also asked Fr. Nicholas Gruner and Fr. Paul Kramer, two proponents of Fatima, their opinions on this issue? And if not, can you? I have to realize that many people are at a stumbling block, and they can not thoroughly dismantle this allegation.
No, we don't know if Fr. Malachi Martin had any thoughts on this topic or, if he did, what they might have been.
Nor have we asked Fr. Gruner or Fr. Kramer about the two Sister Lucys.
TIA correspondence desk
Posted September 23, 2010
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting -
do not necessarily express those of TIA
Related Topics of Interest
Third Secret of Fatima
More Data Shed Light on the Third Secret
Forensics vs. Photoshop
Third Secret: Opinions & Questions
Objections & Answers on the Third Secret
The Message of Benedict at Fatima
A Pope with Devilish Eyes
The Churches of Hell
Progressivist Challenge to Fatima
Counter-Revolution from the Fatima Perspective - Part I
Related Works of Interest