I heard Fr Kramer say that the message was on one large sheet [possibly like A3 size] which was folded in such a way as to give 4 sheets or sides. I am not too familiar with the details now but there is evidence that there were two envelopes. One message was supposed to be 25 lines and the other 64 lines. The four pages presented above are 64 lines - just sayin' - but I can't remember which length referred to which, the vision or the explanation of the vision? Am I not correct in saying that in the Fr. Fuentes 1957 interview Sr. Lucy says she cannot disclose the 3rd Secret and then she goes on to say that what she has just said IS [essentially] the third secret: So we know the 3rd Secret must be compatible with this, the apostacy of or abandonment by the 'leaders'. Nothing about that in the text of the vision released by the Vatican. We also know that it has to concern the disappearance of nations as was posted above from Sr. Lucy's words in 1957 interview (sorry I can't quote it now). And this aspect is compatible with Pope John Paul's words in Fulda, Germany (saying that whole parts of the world would be flooded and nations disappear) and indeed Cardinal Ratzinger's words when he said that the 3rd Secret of Fatima and the messages of Akita (fire will fall from the sky) were essentially the same. Nothing about that in the text released by the Vatican. But neither is it in the supposedly true message posted by PNF above.
I do not believe this theory, but I a Catholic author once suggested to me that there were actually two third secrets: the version posted by PNF given on July 13th, and one given only to Lucia on October 13th (the Neus Europa article). The German article interests me because it seems to have been published in 1963, but it shares some lines with Akita. It seems too long to be the Third Secret and some things didn’t come true in it. It’s hard to say what the third secret actually is.
Your last sentence is not true in my opinion. This sentence in the real Third Secret briefly points to that reality: If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed. Apocalypse 17, speaking of the same city (Babylon): 1 And there came one of the seven angels, who had the seven vials, and spoke with me, saying: Come, I will shew thee the condemnation of the great harlot, who sitteth upon many waters, 2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication; and they who inhabit the earth, have been made drunk with the wine of her whoredom. ... 15 And he said to me: The waters which thou sawest, where the harlot sitteth, are peoples, and nations, and tongues. ... 18 And the woman which thou sawest, is the great city, which hath kingdom over the kings of the earth. Then read Apocalypse 18 to learn how the destruction of Babylon is described: 1 And after these things, I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power: and the earth was enlightened with his glory. 2 And he cried out with a strong voice, saying: Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen; and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every unclean spirit, and the hold of every unclean and hateful bird: 3 Because all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication; and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her; and the merchants of the earth have been made rich by the power of her delicacies. 4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying: Go out from her, my people; that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. 5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and the Lord hath remembered her iniquities. 6 Render to her as she also hath rendered to you; and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup wherein she hath mingled, mingle ye double unto her. 7 As much as she hath glorified herself, and lived in delicacies, so much torment and sorrow give ye to her; because she saith in her heart: I sit a queen, and am no widow; and sorrow I shall not see. 8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be burnt with the fire; because God is strong, who shall judge her. 9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication, and lived in delicacies with her, shall weep, and bewail themselves over her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning: 10 Standing afar off for fear of her torments, saying: Alas! alas! that great city Babylon, that mighty city: for in one hour is thy judgment come. 11 And the merchants of the earth shall weep, and mourn over her: for no man shall buy their merchandise any more. 12 Merchandise of gold and silver, and precious stones; and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner of vessels of ivory, and all manner of vessels of precious stone, and of brass, and of iron, and of marble, 13 And cinnamon, and odours, and ointment, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. 14 And the fruits of the desire of thy soul are departed from thee, and all fat and goodly things are perished from thee, and they shall find them no more at all. 15 The merchants of these things, who were made rich, shall stand afar off from her, for fear of her torments, weeping and mourning. 16 And saying: Alas! alas! that great city, which was clothed with fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and was gilt with gold, and precious stones, and pearls. 17 For in one hour are so great riches come to nought; and every shipmaster, and all that sail into the lake, and mariners, and as many as work in the sea, stood afar off. 18 And cried, seeing the place of her burning, saying: What city is like to this great city? 19 And they cast dust upon their heads, and cried, weeping and mourning, saying: Alas! alas! that great city, wherein all were made rich, that had ships at sea, by reason of her prices: for in one hour she is made desolate. 20 Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath judged your judgment on her. 21 And a mighty angel took up a stone, as it were a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying: With such violence as this shall Babylon, that great city, be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. 22 And the voice of harpers, and of musicians, and of them that play on the pipe, and on the trumpet, shall no more be heard at all in thee; and no craftsman of any art whatsoever shall be found any more at all in thee; and the sound of the mill shall be heard no more at all in thee; 23 And the light of the lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth, for all nations have been deceived by thy enchantments. 24 And in her was found the blood of prophets and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.
This unsigned text supposedly was written by Sister Lucy in her Convent of Tuy on September 1, 1944 or April 1, 1944 https://www.traditioninaction.org/Questions/B352_Secret.html It is obvious that the photo of this document was taken in the last 10 years, as it is digital and the quality of it is quite good. I checked the metadata and it dates back to 2017, when the article was written. There are no folds, no damage and most of all no yellowing of the document. We are talking about a piece of brilliantly white paper that has allegedly gone over 70 years without yellowing, this is impossible. Also, most suspiciously, it happens to come out after Sr. Lucia has died so she cannot refute it. Not to mention the fact that she would have been under obedience not to have written other copies, let alone hand off copies to other people. The hand writing analysis simply shows overlays of Sr. Lucia's written letters over those of the forged document. It really isn't thorough or convincing to me, especially in light of everything else that is suspect with the letter. Everything about the letter stinks.
If you would read the first article I sent over, you would understand that it was a facsimile that was originally sent to the TIA people. The TIA people noticed that the lines had been tampered with using a computer program to move certain phrases around. This is understood to have happened. Why it was tampered with is not clear. Ultimately, what matters is that the handwriting is definitely Sr. Lucia's. There is no doubt about that. If there is any reasonable doubt at all, it is whether the TIA analysis placed the words on the page in the correct spots. But the words are Sr. Lucia's words, and they originated in that one-page document. And, most importantly, the document deals with the "apostasy in the Church" being the key warning of the Third Secret, which, of course, agrees with St. Paul's warning in 2 Thessalonians 2.
I am not going to thoroughly read through every article that you post and expect you to be letting us know details like this in good faith before posting. The fact that this letter is based on some theoretical letter that supposedly exists without any evidence of it makes it all the more absurd. Meaning it doesn't help your argument, it makes it worse. Anyone could have faked this with the tools that exist in the 21st century, and then there is the fact that it allegedly was written on April fools day. Then the guy running the site decides to "decode" the facsimile and make his own version of the 3rd secret. This is nuts. https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm
No, it is not nuts. The person who shared the Third Secret was probably under a vow to not share it. So instead of sharing it in its original form, the person modified the original in slight ways, so they the could share the essentials without (in his mind) breaking the vow he took. This would explain why the original was modified. But that is not what is important anyway. What is important is that we have the document with Sr. Lucia’s handwriting, confirming that the “apostasy in the Church” is the main theme of the Third Secret. Furthermore, we have confirmation from Our Lady the Daniel’s 70 Weeks prophecy deals with the time period of the events starting before 1960.
You have confirmation of nothing PNF, absolutely nothing. Everything you just said is contingent on a "facsimile" of an alleged letter that you have zero proof of, that only came to light after Sr. Lucia died, that is dated on April fools and can be easily forged using today's technology. All of the evidence overwhelmingly points to the letter being fake and you hold zero evidence/proof that this thing is anything more than a hoax. Why do you continue to entirely deny all the evidence of this letter being fake? What overwhelming proof do you have that you would continue to believe this? I don't get it.
Proof #1: The message was written in the confirmed handwriting of Sr. Lucia. Proof #2: The message deals with the exact subject matter Sr. Lucia discussed with Fr. Fuentes in the 1957 interview (quoted above). The real Third Secret described the "apostasy in the Church" at the highest levels. This apostasy started among the laity prior to the 1960s. The apostasy in the hierarchy was ALLOWED by God after the 1960s as a chastisement for "bad Catholics." God allowed heretics to take over His institutional Church as a final test of fidelity to His Son before the Second Coming. For example, Our Lady of La Salette warned about sins against the Second and Third Commandments in the 1840s. Did Catholics stop doing those things she warned about. No, they completely ignored her. To this day, almost all Catholics work, shop and eat out on Sundays and Holy Days. By doing so they consent to the work of others, if not of themselves, on the Sabbath, actions that Our Lady said displeased God immensely. Our Lady of Fatima warned against clothing styles that would cause millions of souls to fall into Hell. Did Catholics listen? No, Catholic women dress like men today (with their pants and tight jeans and leggings) and other clothing styles would have made a prostitute blush in 1917. She begged Catholics to do "penance, penance, penance." But most Catholics today eat meat on Fridays and most days of Lent (also condemned by Our Lady of La Salette). But those Catholics who have embraced the novelties in worship and doctrine after 1960 are the worst of the "bad Catholics." These are referred to as the Tares/Cockle in the gospel parables, those who will be bound and stacked for burning by the angels. God allowed Satan to deceive members of the Church who did not take their faith and the sacraments seriously. He allowed Satan to set up false sacraments devoid of grace that he and his demons might have these incorrigible Catholics for his prey. And read the results of this survey to see his demonic success: https://www.pewresearch.org/religio...ay-they-want-the-church-to-be-more-inclusive/ This is what the end times is about. It is not about secular governments persecuting Christians or geopolitical wars. No, it is about "bad Catholics" (defined above) persecuting the "real Catholics," the ones who keep the traditional faith and worship. It is about "bad Catholics" becoming secular and wanting to get traditional Catholics out of their sight. The "bad Catholics" embrace "the World" and its clothing and its lack of penance and prayer, and its focus on self rather than the teachings of the traditional Catholic Faith. So, when Our Lady's Third Secret reflects this end times reality, the "bad Catholic" does not like that version of the Third Secret. Why? Because it does not fit with the "bad Catholic's" flawed understanding of the end times. It make the "bad Catholics" uncomfortable to think that God does not love novelties in His Church. They are uncomfortable because, deep down, they know the they love the novelties more than they love God. So they block out reality and convince themselves that our God is a God of novelties, even though all of the prophets said the opposite.
Those aren't proof of anything PNF. They don't even meet the definition. something that induces certainty or establishes validity https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proof The only document being worked with is the "facsimile" of the alleged original document. So the hand-writing analyst only had the ability to study the facsimile. She basically over-laid written letters of Sr. Lucia with those of the facsimile and said yes they are similar. It doesn't prove anything, because it isn't even from the original document that the facsimile is based upon. Ask yourself the following questions PNF. How is it they were able to superimpose the writing of sister Lucia onto a facsimile? Was it with a computer? You believe the facsimile to be edited right? What stops the writing from Sr. Lucia from being copied and edited then? The final answer is that absolutely nothing stops the writing of Sr. Lucia from being copied, edited and pasted, then printed. Which is exactly why this document came out after the death of Sr. Lucia in 2005 and exactly why the original document the facsimile is based upon has never been seen. The logical conclusion from this alone is that the document is fake. The letter dealing with the subject matter for the Fr. Fuentes interview isn't proof of anything. How you could even suggest this is absurd. I could write my own third Secret right now with the subject matter from the Fr. Fuentes interview and it wouldn't magically become proof that it is true. Another shady part about all of this is that a picture of the printed facsimile was taken and disseminated. The reason for this is so that the original electronic facsimile document cannot be studied.
The handwriting expert does not consider the validity of the paper of the document. She only looked at the formation of the letters in the words that are handwritten in the document. And she testified that the words in that document were written by the hand of Sr. Lucia. You ask "what stops the writing of Sr. Lucia from being copied and edited." Nothing. But someone would need to find all of the exact words of the real Third Secret in handwritten documents that Sr. Lucia produced. For example, they would need to find the word "apostasia," a word which is used twice in the real Third Secret. So, the forgers would need to find two different examples of that one word in Sr. Lucia's other handwritten documents. But here's the problem. Many people have looked for the word "apostasia" in Sr. Lucia's writing and have not been able to find that word anywhere. So, until you find that word (which other investigators have not been able to find), written twice in Sr. Lucia's handwriting in other documents, you should accept that this is the real Third Secret. Secondly, we have the testimony of Cardinal Ciappi that the Third Secret, which he had personally read, specified that "the Virgin had said that the apostasy would begin from the top." Here is the real Third Secret again: Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret; This part is the apostasy in the Church! Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil, but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze, this one had the gaze of evil. Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church, after some moments, but there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place, it looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building. Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church. Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima. In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's tomb will be removed and transferred to Fatima. This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960. If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed. Our Lady told us that this is written, [in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44. (thumbprint)
Finally No they wouldn't, they could just forge the word based on the writing of Sr. Lucia. Again, anyone could have forged the word apostasia based on the writing of Sr. Lucia. It doesn't suddenly make the facsimile credible. You just admitted there is nothing that stops the writing from Sr. Lucia from being copied and edited. Just because the facsimile contains the word apostasy doesn't make it authentic. Again, I can write my own 3rd secret including the word apostacia in several places and it doesn't make it true. Tell me, what is there to stop someone from forging the word apostacia and presenting it as authentic? Especially if they know that no one has been able to find the word in the writings of Sr. Lucia for a comparison. Do you know what "dupers delight" is?
Instead of quickly responding to things you apparently don't understand, how about reading carefully all of the documents and thinking about how the handwriting verification is done before responding with your unfounded objections? The entire WORD "apostasia" is used twice (in two distinct forms) in the real Third Secret text that I posted. The handwriting is in a cursive (fluent) style, so the individual letters of the word "apostasia" cannot be separated and put back together without revealing the fraud. A person could not just find the individual letters (a-p-o-s-t-a-s-i-a) in other writings and rearrange those letters in a computer program to form the word "apostasia" that would look like Sr. Lucia's natural script. The handwriting analysis would identify anomalies like that and determine that the text was a forgery. You can read about the techniques used by experts to spot forgeries. And your examples are commonly looked for and identified. https://www.robsonforensic.com/articles/forensic-document-examination-expert-witness
You're assuming this is what I am thinking. I am saying they outright forged the word apostasia in cursive and based it on the existing writing of Sr. Lucia. I also couldn't care less about the link you provided as if it is somehow some sort of authoritative process proving the letter authentic. All that happened was the graphologist superimposed the writing of Sr. Lucia on other letters of the photographed facsimile and called it a day. This is the only "proof" that was given on the website. You act like someone could't have forged this, because a forgery would be easily spotted. Meanwhile the graphologist only has a photograph of a facsimile to work with. Show me the undeniable proof that the word apostasia could not have been forged in the facsimile. The fact is that you cannot because as you said earlier no one has found a written record of Sr. Lucia that has the word apostasia.
Another looney thing in your responses, you systematically ignore what the Catechism of the Catholic Church section 675 says: 675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers. The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh. The CCC even ties the "apostasy" to the Antichrist, a pseudo-messiah, who "glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh." The real Third Secret it describing the exact same thing as the CCC. It mentions: 1. "an individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil," which is the Antichrist of the CCC. 2. "a Church, but this was a Church of hell," which is the "religious deception" mentioned the CCC. So, why you find it so hard to believe that the true Third Secret of Fatima would agree with the account in the Catechism? The two are referring to the same events.
What?! So you are saying that just because the facsimile contains content that other conversations with Lucia had, and aligns with the Catechism that it somehow automatically becomes authentic. You do realize someone trying to pass off a fake letter would try to make it look as authentic as possible right? Also, you believe that because I am denying the fake 3rd secret you are promoting, I am also ignoring church teaching somehow. Can you not differentiate between someone denying this fake secret and their still being able to follow church teaching.
Now you are really exposing your ignorance. I was giving you some credit in my previous assumption about a computer-generated forgery. You are now saying that a forger could just write words with their own hand, trying to fake Sr. Lucia's handwriting, and that an expert could not tell the difference. Right? Do you not understand that the science of forensic handwriting analysis can detect those forgeries easily. The judicial systems all over the world depend on these experts to prevent that kind of fraud. These experts and their science are accepted as reliable and trustworthy. You may not understand how they do it, which should not be surprising since you are not trained in forensic handwriting analysis. But is it very arrogant of you to think you can just dismiss what these people do without knowing the first thing about it.
You assume it is fake when there is expert testimony to the contrary. You assume it is fake when the content of the message matches what Cardinal Ciappi said was the subject matter of the Third Secret. You assume it is fake even though the CCC agrees with the basic theme of the real Third Secret and both discuss the same end times events. Why don't you accept that the real Third Secret describes an antipope (Antichrist) and the apostasy in the Church? This is the subject matter that certain people in the Vatican have been desperate to hide from us for the last 65 years. Why have they been trying to hide it? Because the real Third Secret implicates certain actors in the Vatican as the agents of the Antichrist and the Antichrist himself.
I am seeing a lot of words on your part demanding belief and zero proof. Show me the proof PNF, if you can't I will take it as your concession. I saw what was on the website that was passed on as proof and it was just a simple overlay comparison. If they actually had definitive proof for something so important it would have been demonstrated.
