Dear TIA,

In 1955 Cardinal Ottaviani asked Sister Lucy why the third secret was not to be opened before 1960. She told him, "because then it will be clearer."

I do not see anything in the "third secret" released April 21, 2010 that would make it clearer in 1960. It seems to me it would be more confusing. The "secret" describes the 'Pope' as having an evil look and evil eyes. Pius XII was loved. In 1960 John XXIII was perceived as a happy go lucky jovial Pope. I do not think that Catholics would not have believed this "secret" in 1960.

Thank you for having such a wonderful and educational website.

     H.S.



The Editor responds:

Dear H.S.,

Let me suppose that this document is authentic in my response to your question.

Apart from the fact that Paul VI and Benedict XVI have evil eyes, neither of them was Pope before 1960 and, therefore, it would seem to make little sense, as you observe, to mention one or the other to John XXIII, who was then Pope.

However, if we consider the eyes of the Pope as a symbol of a general vision of the Papacy, then the symbol could apply, because John XXIII did in fact introduce a new conception of the Papacy different from the one the Church always had. He adopted the idea that the Papacy should be collegial to please the Greek Schismatics and Protestants, and that it should lose its monarchical and sacral characteristics. These concessions made to heretics and schismatics, as well as the new notion of Papacy in itself, are the worse to be made in history. So, they could very well be symbolized as the "devilish eyes of the Pope."

I believe that revealing this to John XXIII could have been a last warning of Our Lady to him: "Do not go ahead with this project - the Council - which will be the instrument to change the Papacy and the Church." I think he was shrewd enough to understand the message, but he did not abandon his plan for the Council. And we know the consequences: The apostasy became almost complete.

What would have happened if he had taken the message seriously and interpreted it to the public denouncing the New Theology which, at that time, had already infiltrated the entire Church? He could have been another St. Pius X, having the full support of Our Lady to fight against that evil.

In my opinion the Catholic faithful would have understood the message in 1960 if the Pope would have explained it along these lines, and it would have been a powerful stimulus for them to fight against Progressivism in the Church, and Communism and Socialism in the temporal sphere.

     Cordially,

     A.S. Guimarães

Dear TIA,

I think there is something hellish about all the modern churches, and if Our Lady was speaking in a metaphor, then it refers to them all, in my opinion! There seems to be something to this message - it has a ring of authenticity, or at least gives the idea this is what it COULD be.

Thanks for making it known. I hope more people will take it seriously. I think in this day and age, it behooves us to try to know what the Virgin Mary wants to transmit to the world.

     G.M.

Dear TIA,

I just read the correspondence in answer to my query from the Fatima Movement in Portugal and they are stating that the "bishop in white" vision released by the Vatican in 2000 is false.

They say this can be verified by handwriting experts analyzing Sr. Lucy's script. For, they are claiming that Sr. Lucy had only one Third Secret in two different locations: The Bishop da Silva had one, and the other was in an envelope that went to Rome.

I don't claim to know how to explain this, what with there supposedly being two "secrets" in Rome: one in the archives [I believe] and the other in the envelope which Archbishop Capovilla wrote on the outside for Pope John XXIII. Actually, it was Archbishop Capovilla who claimed that there were two secrets and who started the whole scramble a few years ago among Fatima scholars.

If forensics proves this was written by Sr. Lucy then it's a "done deal," and verifying the fingerprint would be the finishing stroke - but we may never know all the mysteries surrounding the Third Secret.

     In Queen Mary,

     R.D.

Dear ladies and gentlemen:

I have read the alleged Third Secret sent to you by a Portuguese friend and, after that, I decided to analyze it. After that, I think this "secret" is a fake. Why?

It is impossible to talk (or write) about Fatima, before reading a lot of testimonies, writings, books, etc., because there are some very important details you must learn about Third Secret. It is easy to find testimonies from important witnesses, even Sister Lucy, like Card. Ottaviani, Msgr. Venancio, Fr. Fuentes, etc. that help us to analyze the authenticity of any document about Fatima.

As you must know, Sister Lucy wrote (hand writing) Third Secret in a single piece of paper containing about 25 lines of text, then she put the paper in an envelope of 12 x 18 cm (4.7 x 7 inches, app.). A paper containing 25 lines of text (hand writing) can not be put inside an envelope this size, unless the paper is folded once least. Looking carefully the picture showing the "secret", it is impossible notice the slightest trace of a fold. It is a paper that has never been folded. It was Msgr. Venancio, Aux. Bishop in Fatima who could see the envelope (inside another envelope) and measure it, before sending it to Vatican Nuncio in Portugal, Msgr. Cento, who sent it later to Rome. He could also see that the secret is about 25 lines long. Card. Ottaviani, who read the real secret, has said that it is a single piece of paper, containing about 25 lines of text.

Of course, it is possible to write 25 lines of text in a paper of 12 x 18 cm, if you write with very, very small characters, but Sister Lucy always used a normal size of letter. And there is no reason, for Sister Lucy to change the size of her writing.

Another very important detail is about style.

Sister Lucy, Vatican authorities and several other witnesses have told everybody that the secret (the part Vatican authorities insist does not exist and therefore has not been revealed) is a letter sent to Holy Father. In other words, it has a destinatary [addressee]. Where is the destinatary in the "secret" showing a "Holy Father" going into an ugly church?

This letter is very important, because it explains the Third Secret and teaches us about the things we must do to avoid Heavenly Chastisement. If the "secret" is true, then, where is the letter explaining it?

Another objection: What, in the "secret" could be better understood in 1960, as Sister Lucy said when she was asked about the reason to read and publish it in 1960? Answer: nothing. Even John XXIII didn't know in 1960 that a Pope named John Paul II could become Pope 15 years after his death.

I have about 5 or 6 more objections, but I think it is not necessary to write any more to prove that the "secret" is a fake.

     God bless you all.

     M.M.G.



The Editor responds:

Dear M.M.G.,

Thank you for your objections. They contribute to the discussion.

1. I believe that your argument of the folded paper is valid; there is no fold mark on the photograph of the sheet of paper that was posted on the Internet on April 21, 2010, and TIA reproduced. But, as you can read in the e-mail above yours, there is evidence that Sister Lucy wrote two copies of the secret. If this information is true, your primary objection falls, because it does not necessarily apply to the other copy.

The secret we are discussing, which may be the second copy that remained in Portugal, actually was written on a single page and the text has precisely 25 lines, both data match the description.

Supposing that Sister Lucy would have made two identical copies, as far as the paper measurements are concerned, even though it is a photo and impossible to gauge them precisely, by the proportions of that photo - 3.6" x 4.7" (9.2 x 12 cm) - one can estimate that the original would be probably between 2 and 2.5 times that proportion, that is, between 7.2" x 9.4"; (18.4 x 24 cm) and 9.1" x 11.8" (23 x 30 cm). A paper of this size could be folded in its length and width and placed inside of the envelope of 4.7" x 7.1" (12 x 18 cm), which Bishop Venancio sent to the Vatican Nuncio to Portugal. These measurements seem quite usual for a letter and, therefore, speak favorably to the secret recently released.

2. Your argument that the addressee of the letter was the Pope is only half true, because the Pope was ordered by Our Lady to reveal the secret before 1960. So, the main addressee was the Catholic public that should have known the content of that letter through the Holy Father.

What difference would the revelation of this secret have made for the Catholic public? It would have confirmed that already in 1960 there was an enormous apostasy in the Church and that it had contaminated Rome.

If you read the answer I gave to the first correspondent above, you see that possibly Our Lady was referring to Progressivism and Communism.

If the Pope would have revealed the content of this letter and in addition made the consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I believe that not only could he have vaccinated Catholic public against these errors, but Communism could have fallen and Russia could have converted as a bloc, bringing to the Church a new blood that could start a new era.

You see that it is not so simple to discard that 25-line sheet of paper. It keeps returning to the surface giving the impression that it might be the authentic secret.

     Cordially,

     A.S. Guimarães

Dear TIA,

I thought you would want to see this, if you haven't already.

On route to Portugal yesterday, Benedict XVI had this to say about Fatima (reported by John Allen for the National Catholic Reporter). I thought it was a good preview of what we can expect " strange phenomelogical and historicist talk about the "supernatural impulse being translated according to the subject's possibilities for imagining it and expressing it."" which is a way of saying this is how the simple little children saw it, but it can be different for others.

Then, we get the big statement that sin is in the Church. That was NOT what I was taught in my Catechism. Could this be a bad translation? I hope so.

I hope you print this, because so many trads at my church are just completely taken with this Pope and think he is orthodox and will consecrate Russia to the Immaculate Heart. I doubt it, and I think this preview of his Portugual trip confirms my doubts, not their completely unfounded and unrealistic hopes.

     B.R.



REPORTER: Now we look to Fatima, which will be the spiritual culmination of this trip. What meaning do the apparitions of Fatima have for us today? When you presented the Third Secret of Fatima in a press conference at the Vatican Press Office in June 2000, you were asked if the message of the secret could be extended beyond the assassination attempt against John Paul II to other sufferings of the popes. Could it also be extended to put the suffering of the church today in the context of that vision, including the sins of the sexual abuse of minors?

BENEDICT: First of all, I want to express my joy to go to Fatima, to pray before the Madonna of Fatima, and to experience the presence of the faith there, where from the little ones a new force of the faith was born. It's not limited to the little ones, but has a message for the whole world and all epochs of history, it illuminates this history.

As I said in the presentation, there is a supernatural impulse which doesn't come simply from someone's imagination but from the supernatural reality of the Virgin Mary. That impulse enters into a subject, and is expressed according to the possibilities of the subject, who is determined by his or her historic situation. The supernatural impulse is translated, so to speak, according to the subject's possibilities for imagining it and expressing it. In this expression formed by the subject, there are always hidden possibilities to go beyond, to go deeper. Only with time can we see all the depth which was, so to speak, dressed in this vision, which was possible for the concrete person.

With regard to this great vision of the suffering of the popes, beyond the circumstances of John Paul II, other realities are indicated which over time will develop and become clear. Thus it's true that beyond the moment indicated in the vision, one speaks about and sees the necessity of suffering by the church. It's focused on the person of the pope, but the pope stands for the church, and therefore sufferings of the church are announced. The church will always be suffering in various ways, up to the end of the world. The important point is that the message of Fatima in its substance is not addressed to particular situations, but a fundamental response: permanent conversion, penance, prayer, and the three cardinal virtues: faith, hope and charity. One sees there the true, fundamental response the church must give, which each of us individually must give, in this situation.

In terms of what we today can discover in this message, attacks against the pope or the church don't come just from outside the church. The suffering of the church also comes from within the church, because sin exists in the church. This too has always been known, but today we see it in a really terrifying way. The greatest persecution of the church doesn't come from enemies on the outside, but is born in sin within the church. The church thus has a deep need to re-learn penance, to accept purification, to learn on one hand forgiveness but also the necessity of justice. Forgiveness does not exclude justice. We have to re-learn the essentials: conversion, prayer, penance, and the theological virtues. That's how we respond, and we can be realistic in expecting that evil will always launch attacks from within and from outside, but the forces of good are also always present, and finally the Lord is stronger than evil. The Madonna for us is the visible maternal guarantee that the will of God is always the last word in history.

Follow us

Other Articles in the Polemic

  For Forensic Purposes: A Larger Photo

  Third Secret of Fatima

  A Pope with Devilish Eyes

  More Data Shed Light on the Third Secret

  Three Different Third Secrets

  The Churches of Hell

  Third Secret: Opinions and Questions

  'Ugly Church' and Church Authority Transferred to Fatima

  Advocating the Authenticity of the Third Secret

  Third Secret: It is Fake! It is Authentic!

  Eight Objections to the 'Third Secret'

  Forensics vs. Photoshop

  Malachi Martin & the Third Secret

  Second Interview of Malachi Martin on the Third Secret

  The Alleged Third Secret of Fatima

  Discussion Continues on the 'Third Secret'