Dear Editor,

Regarding the possible third secret which you have posted on your site, I have some doubts as to its authenticity.

1. You begin by saying: "One of our readers from Portugal sent us the facsimile of a handwritten text that could be the text of the Third Secret of Fatima."

You do not explain who this reader is, nor how he would have access to a copy of the third secret. We have understood that the Third Secret is kept locked in the Papal apartment. We know that this secret has been see by a very few number of men even among the hierarchy of the Church. How then would "One of our readers from Portugal" get a copy? I'm afraid it strains my belief to the breaking point that some ordinary person could just happen to have a copy of the best kept secret in the world lying around!

2. You say; "Some unidentified person who had access to this document released a photo of it very recently." What person?? What veracity can be given to a document released by some person who can not be identified? All we actually know of the Third Secrets have come from those who have read it and who's quotes are attributed to them. I am thinking, among others, of the astonishing quote by Cardinal Ciapi that, in the Third Secret, it is stated, among other things, that the Apostasy in the Church would begin at the top.

3. Why would Sister Lucy have not signed the document? She signed everything else of note that she wrote. Surely the Third Secret was a document of some note. Why the fingerprint, and so prominent? Did Sister Lucy sign other documents by fingerprint? Which ones? Even if forensics could verify that the fingerprint is actually hers, there are ways to add someone's fingerprint to an object to mislead.

4. Body features and bad architecture are not in themselves evils or signs of evil. For some "evil" eyes is just a sign of poor genetics.

5. Why would Our Lady insist that the corner stone of St. Peter's tomb be transferred to this ugly new Church in Fatima? It seems to me that this new church in Fatima is one of the very church buildings we are being warned against and among the ugliest of the ugly.

6. Does the authority of Rome really rest in the cornerstone of St. Peter's grave? Does it not really rest in Christ`s mandate to Peter and his successors, in the authority passed to Peter? While the gravestone might be symbolic, I can't see that it carries any authority at all. It is after all, just a stone.

7. If the authority of Rome is to be removed and delivered to Fatima, to whom exactly is it to be delivered? Who at Fatima shall exercise this authority? In reality, the authority of Rome could only be exercised at Fatima if Peter moved to Fatima. Remember, where Peter is, there is the Church.

8. Since you have released this copy to the public, when do we start counting the 69 weeks until the destruction of Rome?

     Peace and blessings,

     G.J.N.

The Editor responds:

Dear G.J.N.,

Before starting to answer your objections, I would like to reaffirm to you and our readers that I am not sure that this is the real Third Secret. Here at TIA, we are giving the document the benefit of the doubt and, consequently, are treating it with due seriousness.

I would like to stress also that, regarding authentic prophecies, there is a saying in exegesis that 'prophecies are completely understood only after they are fulfilled.' Indeed, who fully understood the 69 weeks in the prophecy of Daniel until it was fulfilled centuries later in the Crucifixion of Our Lord and the destruction of Jerusalem? Prophecies are warnings to those who can hear the voice of God, but they are not so clear as to oblige belief from those who do not.

So, let us take a Catholic approach to this document. It is not a book of accounts; it is a prophecy with its own mysteries.

I answer the objections observing the same order you used.

1. Regarding the source of that document whom we cite as 'one of our readers': You imply that no one could take any document seriously if he does not know its source. I disagree with this presupposition. If someone sends you a photo in the mail showing a burglar entering your house at night, and your house was actually broken into some days ago, it would be foolish to disregard that photo because you do not know who sent it. The person who sent it was trying to help you but wanted to remain incognito. It is up to you to check whether or not the photo is authentic.

Responding to other readers, I have already raised possible reasons for that anonymity. You may read them here.

Independent of reasons of convenience or inconvenience like the ones you present - it was only seen by a few people, it was kept in secret files in the Vatican, it was not accessible to common people - we have a document that has an intrinsic value per se. We should analyze it. If you think it is not worthwhile and want to leave the discussion, it is fine. You are entitled to do so. We will continue, however, until we have a clearer picture.

2. Your second objection in effect repeats the first. Actually it does not make much difference if the name of the person with access is known.

Perhaps you do not know this, but several decades ago there was a report that the Third Secret of the Vatican was stolen. It is also said that a second copy of the secret was kept in Portugal.

Trying to help you understand what could have happened, let me imagine a scenerio: An old lady cleans the house of the Bishop who kept a copy of the Third Secret in Portugal, or perhaps she has access to the room of the thief who stole it from the Vatican. While cleaning, she opens a drawer and sees a paper in a handwriting similar to that of Sister Lucy, whom she admires. Later she comments on this to her nephew, who goes there and snaps a photo when no one is around. He becomes convinced that it is the real Third Secret and disseminates it. He wants to remain incognito to avoid getting into trouble with the Bishop or the thief.

Couldn't Our Lady use a means like this to disseminate her message, which she wants to be known but today's Conciliar Church wants to hide? Should we disregard the possibility that this could be the document simply because we do not know who the photographer is? It would be a mistake to do so, I believe.

3. Sister Lucy did not sign the two previous parts of Our Lady's message in any document of which I am aware. So, the fact that she did not sign this one would speak in favor of its authenticity.

Why a fingerprint? Perhaps it is to offer an indisputable proof that she wrote it. No one can falsify a fingerprint. We only need another matching fingerprint for definite identification.

4. Evil signs, evil eyes. These topics were already addressed here and here.

5. I do not believe that Our Lady 'insists' on the cornerstone; it is simply mentioned as a symbol. It is indisputable that to have a piece of the Tomb of Peter in Fatima is symbolic. Whether it is in an ugly place or not, a part of that Tomb is now is Fatima. It seems that this is what matters. If the prophecy is true, a more appropriate church can be built there in the future where it can be placed.

6. This objection is baseless. Nowhere in that document is it affirmed that the cornerstone carries authority.

Yes, the authority of Christ to govern and teach the Church was invested in Peter and transferred to his Successors. However, after St. Peter denied Our Lord three times and was absent at the foot of the Cross, it was Our Lady who represented the fidelity of the Church for a certain period. After the Passion it was she who gradually helped the Apostles - who gathered around her - return to a faithful position and prepared them to receive the Holy Ghost on the Pentecost. Why could something similar not occur to make the Church recover from the immense present day apostasy in the Church?

7. To whom was the authority delivered in that period of time that extended from St. Peter's denial until the Pentecost? I believe that, from the juridical point of view - which seems to be the only one that matter to you - there was no official transferred of authority. It was still St. Peter who had the authority, even though it was under the influence of Our Lady.

8. When should we begin to count off the 69 weeks? You tell me. I do not have any inclination to determine the fine points of such calculations. I simply take those weeks as a warning that a chastisement of great magnitude is near.

I hope these considerations will help you.

Cordially,

Atila S. Guimaraes