Today is the anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun that occurred in 1917. Thousands of people saw it. It had been raining and, after, clothes and ground were dry. Pius XII saw it in Rome in the Vatican gardens.
Such an anniversary prompts the question. The “the Vatican” reveal everything about the so-called 3rd Secret from Our Lady to Sr. Lucia? In the case of the first two secrets there were visions and then explanations from Our Lady. In the case of the third, we have been given the description of the vision. We have not been given an explanation from Our Lady. Yet we have been told that all has been revealed. That also seems inconsistent with evidence that there are two parts of what Sr. Lucia communicated to the Pope.
Let’s have a poll. Anyone can vote, but you have to be registered and approved to post a comment.
Loading ...
My own theory is that our Lady warned against a disastrous council. I have a hard time believing that she who named the Pope under whom World War II would start, would have had nothing to say about a council that would shake the Church to her core.
What seems to be missing is not the secret itself but the explanation by our lady that accompanies the secret
When Our Lady talks about the death of many cardinals and a pope I do not believe she is talking about physical death but a true death which is the loss of heaven. In other words a time when the hierarchy of the church will fall leading themselves and others to hell.
I watched a video recently intimating that the 3rd secret (or Our Lady’s words) will be revealed during the course of a Great War. It also introduced an element I had never considered before. That the consecration of Russia being accepted by Heaven and the conversion to follow is contingent upon the 3rd secret being revealed. Remember that when these popes and bishops smothered Our Lady’s words they committed a grave insult of direct disobedience against what was instructed by Our Lady. They must now show obedience, make reparations by doing what she instructed, either before or alongside any consecration to be accepted. There is a completeness of obedience that will please the Queen of Heaven. I find a lot of logic in this theory because as we saw in how Jesus came and died for our sins, his was an obedience that completely repaired the disobedience in the Garden of Eden, it was NOT partial obedience which can only effect a partial repair. So, Rome can do consecrations until the cows come home but the obedience must be to ALL of what Our Lady asked in my humble opinion.
I read an obscure quote from a mystic nun who was allegedly told by Jesus that he was going to chastise the earth not with regular fire, but the fire of revolution. I think Dan has it right – maybe the vision was not about the physical deaths of cardinals and popes, instead maybe it symbolized the corruption or ‘death’ of their offices as a cardinals and popes that could be trusted … perhaps their own spiritual deaths as well.
There needs to be a third option in this poll, [No. The poll is perfect as it it. You either think all was released or you don.t] “What does it matter if the third secret of Fatima was revealed entirely or not?”. It is entirely possible that this third secret has been in recent years a distraction [?] from what we [??] ought to be doing in our spiritual life. [??? Because a) people can’t think about more things than one… b) who is “we”?… c) because one size fits all?] Private revelation like this [Like… the messages of Our Lady of Fatima that have been approved of by the Church?] is a good reminder of the basics that we should keep in mind and do, but I have seen many Latins giving too much focus to private revelations. [Which suggests, by your phrasing, that you are perhaps not a Latin Church Catholic.]
They couldn’t handle saying Russia in the consecration so they omitted that.
They couldn’t handle “apostasy at the top” (of the church) so they omitted that.
Imagine just saying “no” to what Our Lady shares or her requests.
What the Vatican “revealed” in 2000 was no “secret” at all; it had been published in “Fatima in Her Own Words,” which I read about ten years prior. At least, the vision itself was. The explanation of it, however, was clearly part of the secret. I honestly believe the vision showed a physical death of the Pope himself; an analysis I read of the vision in “The Fatima Crusader,” also in the 1990s, said that the use of the word “corpses” instead of “bodies” may have been meant to indicate that some of the deceased also faced the “true death” Dan referred to in his comment above. Considering there’s another prophecy out there – I forget which one of the apparitions it’s attached to, but it is one of the Church-approved ones – involving the Pope being kicked by men who invaded the Vatican itself, it’s very likely those same invaders would then force him to walk up to the site of his execution. There’s still a while to go before that happens; according to Our Lady of Quito, there will be a great war, and then the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart, leading to the peace which will last for about 25-30 years. I believe it will be the Pope of that time who will be the victim of the invaders.
I don’t have any “inside information” that would help on this. I just find it difficult indeed to believe that Pope JPII would lie about releasing “everything” and then intentionally withhold part. It is clear that the Vatican’s release is intended to convey completeness, by containing not merely the contents, but a photographic copy of the letter.
https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
It seems to me that insisting that some material was withheld amounts to little less than calling not merely top Vatican officials, but the pope himself, a bald-faced liar. Now, I am well aware that there were bad men in the papal seat in past centuries. But JPII was not one of those. And on the other side, he didn’t HAVE to publish anything on the subject. There was no high pressure that he had to cave in to, so as to get it off his back, he could have simply continued the stance of his predecessors who also did not publish it. So, if he didn’t want to release the whole thing, he was free to SAY “we are not releasing the whole thing” or to, ya know, simply NOT release anything.
I admit that I don’t understand the entirety of what the secret is and means as prophetic, but that’s a pretty common situation for prophecy, isn’t it? Does anyone really understand the Book of Revelation in all its detail?
Then Cardinal Ratzinger was, if I remember correctly, prominently involved in the release of what we were told was the Third Secret. I have also heard it said that the same man has later indicated that the message of Our Lady in Akita is effectively the Third Secret, a message which seems to be completely different to that earlier release. If both these things are true, make of them what you will.
@DeeEmm
”That the consecration of Russia being accepted by Heaven and the conversion to follow is contingent upon the 3rd secret being revealed”.
I had not heard of this reasoning before but it seems to make sense. Along with the First Saturdays Devotion, it appears the conversation of Russia could be contingent on all three being carried out before the conversion.
It still astounds me that a Pope – any Pope – would not do Our Lady’s bidding in releasing the Third Secret in its entirety for some flimsy wordly excuse.
What do we know as true? Third Secret according to Priest who delivered it was a paragraph long. It had to do with a Dogma of the Church being suppressed.
Only Dogma suppressed to this day is No Salvation outside of the Catholic Church.
Politics played big part in suppression. Vatican signed agreement with Russia to back off on criticism of communism. Vatican didn’t want to offend Protestants.
How many Martyrs died bring the One True Faith to the world?
I do NOT believe that everything was revealed.
My personal opinion is that “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved” reveals somewhat that there will be an apostasy of the Faith, probably from the highest echelons. We see heretical clamoring regarding the upcoming synod and the wholesale support of certain priests who preach unorthodox things. To think what the full secret could therefore entail is horribly frightening but I trust in Christ’s promise that the Church cannot be fully destroyed.
Having read a great deal regarding Fatima since the early sixties I too was rather surprised when the third of the secrets was “revealed.” My first thought was “…didn’t we know this already?”
The First General Congregation of the Second Vatican Council took place “by chance” on 13 October 1962 beneath a torrential rain — the very day chosen by the leftist Northern Europeans to undermine the course of the council with the infamous intervention of Cardinal Liénart of Lille. Illuminating. It seems to say far more about the nature of the third secret than any manicured statement issued in 2000.
The abusive restraints of “evangelical obedience” and “mental reservation” could very well have been employed to provide credence to the 2000 “disclosure.” We’ve observed far to much over the last sixty years preventing any adult from simply accepting without critique what comes forth from bureaucracy — even ecclesiastical bureaucracy.
Two Cents from a convert that really doesn’t have much background knowledge/exposure to various Marian Apparitions. Virgin of Guadalupe is about the only thing that I have seen given attention to in the various parishes that I have attended and that is only a minor amount. This is not said with disrespect, but Fatima is often the realm of conspiracy theorists. I would gander that the average normie Catholic doesn’t pay attention to it because of, depending on age, the 2000 statement and how the message was not revealed when it was supposed to be in the 1960’s. The Vatican comes off as disbelieving it so people naturally end up disbelieving it.
My own read on things: If you look at other Marian Apparitions, you can see that they have been “finessed” by the Magisterium. Fatima is no different. There is a lot of stuff that doesn’t lineup but does make sort of sense if one approached Fatima from the same interpretative lens as modern biblical scholarship (various crit. theories that don’t actually believe the historicity or that there is an objective meaning/interpretation). So I would say that the answer is that it is both all there and not all there. (Sort of like how the liturgy of the NO is both all there and not all there). Just points to the theory that there are two Churches concurrently sharing the same space.
@Catholic Tech Geek
Anything can become a distraction, but that doesn’t mean that we should ignore everything.
Private revelation doesn’t mean “personal revelation” — it just means that the intended audience is not the entirety of the public — i.e. all people, in all places, at all times. Fatima is private because it is directed to the entirety of the Church (not all people) for a specific period of time (from the giving to its fulfillment), and makes specific requests of the episcopate. Given that the Magisterium has declared it authentic, and we, by living in this specific period of time are its intended audience, it would be perilous to carte blanche ignore it to the point of rejecting it.
@Not
There is a lot more than “No salvation outside of the Church” being suppressed. For example, various dogmas surrounding the nature of man and woman, grace, and the Missionary Mandate of the Church (to use VII’s language). Granted, the lot are tied together so that when one is suppressed, all dogmas end up getting suppressed to varying degrees.
Lurker 59,
The reason many believe it was “No Salvation Outside of Catholic Church.”, is pretty self evident today. How many times have we heard Catholic Priest at funerals saying this one or that one is in heaven. Today’s church has an I’m okay your ok attitude. When do we hear of missionaries making converts? What about the Martyrs? They could have denied the one true faith and lived. Without this KEY Dogma, we are no different than any protestant, muslim, hindu, Buddhist, etc.
Kevin Symonds’ books on Fatima, Lucia, and the Third Secret are pretty convincing, about the evidence for hidden parts of the Secret being equal parts “I don’t know Portuguese” and “I heard that somebody said that somebody else said….”
I mean, you can look at a picture of Lucia’s writings, and read her freaking handwritten words in Portuguese — and right next to it will be some horrible, terrible translation that doesn’t say what she says. Argh.
Or somebody will say, “Our Lady told Jacinta X thing,” and then it turns out that St. Jacinta just said something on her own hook, to some other lady, in words that the lady only remembered, and didn’t report for years and years — and THEN somebody translated it horribly into English. And that horrible translation of this far removed message from Jacinta somehow gets turned into an infallibly worded message from Our Lady. Um.
And I’m deeply disappointed in the whole 2nd Lucia thing. I know we’re used to modern dentistry keeping old ladies looking like young ladies, but it doesn’t work that way for everyone. (And Lucia didn’t exactly get the finest dentistry of her time, either.) If you look in your family photos, a lot of you probably had great-great-grandmas who looked totally different in old age than in youth.
So even though I think the Vatican spent way too many years being mysterious about it all, I think the public haven’t really done a great job separating fact from rumor and urban legend, either.