What People Are Commenting
The Alleged Third Secret of Fatima
TIA received the following observations on the supposed Third Secret of Fatima from a reader in Portugal. It took us a while to find time to translate it into English, but today we are pleased to present his interesting observations to our readers. The Editor.
Dear Mr. Atila Guimarăes
I read your article Forensic vs. Photoshop regarding the alleged Third Secret of Fatima on the TIA website.
Since my mother-tongue is Portuguese, as it is yours, allow me to present you some commentaries meant to help in further clarification of this topic.
Everything that follows is based on the document posted on TIA website titled For Forensic Studies: A Larger Photo.
1. The date of the letter: It seems to me that what is written is 1/4/944 [April 1, 944] and not 1/9/944 [September 1, 944]. It suffices to compare the 4 (which indicates the month, in the Portuguese form of writing dates) with the 9 from the 944 to verify that actually it is a 4 with its angles, and not a 9 with its round shape. It also becomes clear from its similarity to the 4s in the 944. Comparing the numbers in the last phrase of the letter - "Daniel 9 24-25 e Mateus 21 42-44" - leads to the same conclusion. Therefore, the date is 1/4/944 [April 1, 1944].
2. Possible falsifications in Photoshop: I often work with the latest version of Photoshop, and, indeed, I can confirm that you are right in affirming that the date could easily have been manipulated in order to set a false trail to suggest that the whole text were false.
3. Inconsistency in the description: Now, I call your attention to this phrase in the letter: “Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.”
a. In 1917 Our Lady revealed to the little shepherds the future apostasy in the Church, showing them a Pope with devilish eyes with multitudes cheering him and the modernist churches.
b. Describing this revelation, Sister Lucia begins in this way: “Our Lady showed us the individual…”
c. But afterwards the revelation stumbles, I would say, when Sister Lucy writes: “Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church...”
d. That is, in 1917 Our Lady said to the little shepherds: “You saw the apostasy in the Church.”
e. But I ask myself whether she would have also said what follows in the text: “This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.”
f. Although in 1944 Sister Lucy received the express authorization of Our Lady to accede to the request of the Bishop of Leiria and write the secret in a letter, the resulting letter and the instruction about divulging it, apparently given by Our Lady to the children, seem to have been “inserted” after the words: “You saw the apostasy in the Church.”
g. I conclude, for this reason, that this “insertion” was made solely by the author who furnished, or manipulated, the text.
h. Such "insertion" does not seem to me to correspond to what follows in the letter.
i. Given that Our Lady commands that the Papacy be transferred from Rome to Fatima because of the former’s lost of faith;
j. Then, its cathedral or cathedra, as you affirm, “must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.”
k. In face of these commands and prophecies of Our Lady, made in 1917, it would make full sense that after saying all this, she would have ordered Lucy - already in 1917 - to write down everything in a letter that could “be opened by the Holy Father, but must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.”
l. It seems, then, that this last phrase:
4. A chastisement announced but not consummated! “If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.” These would also be words spoken by Our Lady in 1917.
- Either should appear at the end of the letter if it actually were a command of Our Lady in 1917 and would suppose that Pius XII would be Pope before 1960, as he was, and were authorized to read it, although the Holy Father of that time was Benedict XV.
- Or it should appear at the beginning of the letter if this were something decided by Sister Lucy in 1944, as it normally is said, because according to Sister Lucy, its content would be clearer in 1960.
- But it should never appear after Our Lady’s words - “You saw the apostasy in the Church” - giving the impression that those were still her words.
a. Now then, 69 weeks had already passed after that command of Our Lady to transfer the Papacy to Fatima and the destruction of the cathedral or cathedra of Rome.
b. As a matter of fact, all the Popes since John XXIII knew the authentic Third Secret.
c. So, what is to be thought about a chastisement of this magnitude, announced by Our Lady but not consummated, when all the conditions were already fulfilled?
d. The loss of authority of Mary and the subsequent diminishing of trust in her could well be the real goal of this ‘failed chastisement.’
In conclusion, it seems to me that, as you affirmed:
I hope to have contributed in some way to the discovery of the truth.
- There is a letter with the Third Secret of Fatima;
- The Vatican has it in its power despite the alleged ‘theft’ that was talked about during Paul VI's pontificate, if I am not mistaken;
- The Vatican tried “to empty” this real secret in 2000 with the “vision of the Bishop dressed in white;”
- But very few people believed in it;
- The Vatican felt increasingly pressured by demands to reveal the letter and the content of the true secret;
- Perhaps the Vatican knew that there was a copy of Sister Lucy's letter with the Third Secret somewhere else (perhaps in Portugal);
- The Vatican could not get hold of this copy;
- Fearing that it could come to public knowledge, or perhaps facing the imminent danger of this happening, the Vatican decided to put out the true text, changing the dates and putting contradictions and lies in it. Thus, if the authentic text were divulged, its content, very similar to the already known text, would be completely distrusted.
- As the maxim goes: “If you cannot conquer someone, approach him in order to defeat him more quickly.”
- Finally, if the Vatican is really, as it appears, behind this alleged Third Secret of Fatima, we can be sure that a copy of it exists and it is well guarded by someone unknown by the Vatican. May God protect him!
Posted November 16, 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
Malachi Martin on the Third Secret
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
|Related Works of Interest|
Comments | Questions | Objections | Home | Books | CDs | Search | Contact Us | Donate
©2002-2013 Tradition in Action, Inc. All Rights Reserved