"When the communism comes back..."

If this supposed text of the Third Secret is authentic, it undermines the sedevacantist claims of the past 66 years by mentioning the pontificate of John Paul II.

 

It certainly does undermine their claims, which is one of the reasons that I think that the "Sedevacantist thesis" (no valid Pope since 1958 or 1963) is false.

But the Sedevacantists (and others holding to traditional Catholic teaching and Sacraments) are correct that serious errors were introduced into the Church in the 1960s. And they continue to provide the true sacerdotal priesthood and the true Sacraments to all who approach them with the proper dispositions. And Canon 844 §2 of 1983 Canon law gives all Catholic faithful the right to receive Sacraments from them in certain cases.

But the true Third Secret is not concerned with Sedevacantists. It describes a religious leader, inside the Catholic Church, who deceives members of the Church into following him into apostasy. This same message is found as the description of the Antichrist's "religious deception" in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

The Church's ultimate trial

675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 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.575

676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.577

677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580

573 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.
574 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20.
575 Cf. 2 Th 2:4-12; I Th 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; I Jn 2:1 8, 22.
576 Cf. DS 3839.
577 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21.
578 Cf. Rev 19:1-9.
579 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4.
580 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pt 3:12-13.​

So, the Sedevacantists are not the problem, according to the Catechism. Instead, a leader who has a world-wide following and billions of Catholics subject to him is the Antichrist. There are less than 30K people who attend Sedevacantist chapels worldwide. To focus on them is to miss the Bergoglian elephant in the room.

 

With respect, the Pope is not the Antichrist.

 

We agree.

A legitimate Pope is not the Antichrist (see St. Francis of Assisi prophecy). An Antipope is the Antichrist.

Why? Because no other person on earth could lead Catholics ("the elect") into apostasy (see CCC 675). The ultimate authority on doctrine is the Pope, or someone that Catholics incorrectly believe is the Pope, but actually is not.

The deception that the "man of sin" can be "the Pope" is the primary deception that sets in motion all of the other end time deceptions (see 2 Thessalonians 2).

 

I believe this pontificate possibly fulfills St. Francis' prophecy about the Destroyer, but I do not think he is the Antichrist or the False Prophet himself; otherwise, St. Francis would have revealed his identity in the same prophetic text.

Currently, we are living through an interregnum of apostasy at the helm of the Church, which, in my opinion, is not yet the period of the False Prophet. Things could change quickly with an imminent conclave, and the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart could come by the beginning of the next decade—we do not yet know what lies ahead.

If you believe that the First Beast and the Antichrist are the same figure—which, to me, is still doubtful—note that the description the inhabitants of the earth will give of the Beast portrays someone imposing, powerful, and invincible. This does not align with Pope Francis, whose health is very fragile and who is practically confined to a wheelchair.
Revelation 13:4
4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?

Another point worth mentioning is that Pope Francis has recited the Angelus prayer countless times during his nearly 12-year pontificate, whereas St. John teaches us that a demon is incapable of confessing that Jesus came in the flesh.

 

Another point worth mentioning is that Pope Francis has recited the Angelus prayer countless times during his nearly 12-year pontificate, whereas St. John teaches us that a demon is incapable of confessing that Jesus came in the flesh.

Yes.

 

For the mention of the "destroyer" in Sacred Scripture, see Apocalypse 9:10-11:

10...And they had over them 11 A king, the angel of the bottomless pit; whose name in Hebrew is Abaddon, and in Greek Apollyon; in Latin Exterminans,​

All of those words translate to "destroyer" in English. Compare the Gospel of John 19:19:

19 And Pilate wrote a title also, and he put it upon the cross. And the writing was: JESUS OF NAZARETH, THE KING OF THE JEWS 20 This title therefore many of the Jews did read: because the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, in Greek, and in Latin.
​

So Jesus Christ and the Antichrist are described in similar ways, mirror images of each other. And the word that St. John uses to describe the Antichrist is "the destroyer."

The False Prophet is both a singular individual and a group of individuals. The "false prophet" are the "false prophets" that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 24 (and elsewhere). They are bishops wearing mitres. Mitres look like "two horns" coming out of the head of the bishop (see Apocalypse 13:11 below). It is the bishops, the false prophets, who give "power unto the beast" because they will not "make war with him":

11 And I saw another beast coming up out of the earth, and he had two horns, like a lamb, and he spoke as a dragon.​

And when you think the Antichrist doesn't fit the description of a certain person, remember what the Jews thought of Jesus. He wasn't what they expected, right?

 

Jesus already explained how to understand that kind of thing in Matthew chapter 15:

7 Hypocrites, well hath Isaias prophesied of you, saying: 8 This people honoureth [confess] me with their lips: but their heart is far from me. 9 And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.​

Ask yourself, honestly, does Bergoglio teach the doctrines of Jesus and His Church, or does he teach his own doctrines? And if the latter, he confesses Jesus with "his lips" only. That is a false "confession." St. John is talking about a true confession of Jesus.

 

"The holy father will have much to suffer"
Fr Gobbi messages constantly spoke of the attacks against the holy father. Regardless of if you disagree with some stuff the pope says or does, he's still our holy father. Do not be on the wrong side of this. The pharisies in the church will go into schism against the pope. Everyone assumes the schism will come from the liberals, but more and more it's looking like schism will come from the right, those that think they know better than the church. They will be the new martin Luther movement. It's dangerous, don't be on that side.

 

The Holy Father who had "much to suffer" was Benedict XVI, Joseph Ratzinger.

BXVI is the last legitimate Pope, as St. Malachy's prophecy states, calling him "the glory of the olive." Also, on the subject of names, Joseph Ratzinger has the "same name" as Pope Pius X, Giuseppe [Joseph in Italian] Sarto, who prophesied the following just before his death:

“I have seen one of my successors, of the same name, who was fleeing over the bodies of his brethren. He will take refuge in some hiding place; but after a brief respite, he will die a cruel death.”
​

The "pharisees" of the Vatican already went into schism against the Pope. It happened in 2013 when Benedict XVI was forced to "retire" and become something unheard of, a "Pope Emeritus." Note, BXVI did not refer to himself as a non-Pope, after his retirement. He continued to call himself Pope Emeritus, wear the papal white, and sign with his papal name (example here). He believed he was Pope, which means he did not renounce the papal office in February of 2013. He retired from active work. Why? Because he was being manipulated by the Cardinals in the Curia.

And instead of following the papal election law, which requires "the death of the Pope" before a new conclave can be called, the Cardinals illegally "elected" Bergoglio. And almost all of the bishops have gone along with the charade for 12 years.

Please come to your senses. Bergoglio is an abomination. May God open your eyes to the Truth.

 

That's quite a dangerous take, you're basically taking the position that you have this figured out better than the entire church. Because other than the schismatic ex communicated vigano, not a single cardinal agrees with you. I'll stick with the church. Be careful.

 

So in your eyes has Christ abandoned His Church for the last 12 years?

What happens to your hypothesis if Pope Francis or as you say Bergoglio passes away?

If he is the Antichrist, when does the period of peace promiced by Our Lady happen, after the Antichrist?

The timeline becomes untenable unless you think the final unleashing of evil at the end of time doesn't come at the same time as the antichrist.

 

Is it possible the current Pope is the schismatic?

Is the Pope Catholic used to be a rhetorical question!

I leave all this to God because I am a mere layman so I can't make definitive judgements about his legitimacy.

This is a confusing Pope, a pope that makes no sense. Jesus told Peter three times to feed my sheep. This Pope feeds us confusion. His is a legacy of confusion (please God send us a holy Pope to clear up the mess).

He has to be the worst Pope in history. I was thinking the other day when he dies I will feel no sadness, nor will I shed a tear. I am so emotionally detached from that man who is meant to be my shepherd. That in itself tells a tale.

 

A disastrous papacy.

I could rant on and on.

But I will leave it at that.

 

Perhaps this disastrous pontificate will serve as a key to understanding with the Orthodox, as I have observed that the Pope Francis never uses the power of excommunication or the word 'anathema' against those who disagree with his teachings. Thus, papal infallibility could be understood in this light, allowing the Orthodox to gain a new perspective on an issue they have misinterpreted for centuries, thereby facilitating reunification with us.

 

God has a way of weaving good even out of what appears to be failure.

 

His example on his Papal trips has, at times, caused my hair to stand on end- his trip to Canada truly appalled me. Too many specifics in his Papacy has led to confusion, especially concerning dogma!

 

IF he passes away, you say? This most certainly will happen very soon and with an interesting twist.

The Apocalypse, in chapter 13:3 and 13:12, says that he will be "slain to death: and his death's wound was healed." For more detail, I will let the Doctor of the Church, St. Hildegard von Bingen explain:

St. Hildegard von Bingen on the Antichrist’s pretended death

From Scivias:

But I [the Antichrist] will die for you and to your glory, and rise again from death; and so I will deliver my people from Hell, that you may live gloriously with me in my kingdom, as that deceiver [Jesus] pretended He had done before." And he will tell his beloved ones to run him through with a sword and wrap him in a clean shroud, until the day of his resurrection. And he will delude them into thinking they are killing him, and so they will fulfill his commands. Then he will pretend to rise again, and bring out a writing as if for the salvation of souls, which is really a dire curse. And he will give this to people for a sign and command them to adore him. And if any person of faith refuses for love of My name, he will kill that person in great suffering and torture. And thus all who see and hear this will be struck with great wonder and doubtful amazement, as My beloved John shows... (Scivias, Book III, Vision 11, 31).


From Book of Divine Works:

For so too will he [the Antichrist] pretend to die, as if to redeem his people by his death, and to raise himself up again to return to life. He will also have an inscription written upon the foreheads of his followers, through which to introduce into them every evil, as too the ancient serpent, after deceiving humankind, kept them captive by stoking them with lust. Through that scripture he will inspire them by magical craft to oppose baptism and the Christian name, so that they will not desire to leave him, and all will style themselves after him, just as Christians are named after Christ. (The Fathers of the Church, Mediaeval Continuation, Volume 18. St. Hildegard Von Bingen, The Book of Divine Works. Pages 469, Part III, Vision 5, Chapter 31).​

 

So, you're banking your salvation on the idea that you've interpreted all this perfectly, know more than all the Cardinals and bishops of the church..... seems like a risky path. Id rather stay close to the church and the holy father. Any mistakes the holy father has made God can deal with. As catholics we believe the gates of hell will never prevail against the Church and vow to submit to the holy Roman Pontiff. I know i can't go wrong by sticking to that path.

 

This supposed manuscript of the Secret of Fátima that has been circulating on the Internet for years is so obviously fake that it does not even deserve the slightest consideration... Perhaps it is even a bad joke, as it appears to be signed with the date of April 1st, April Fools' Day. Unfortunately, the Spanish journalist and author José María Zavala recently came out to give it credit, which is contributing to confuse more people around the world.



This is nothing more than a poor quality fake, otherwise let's see:

1. The name of Pope John Paul II appears in Spanish in a text written in Portuguese... Oops! 'John Paul' in Portuguese is 'João Paulo', not 'Juan Pablo'.
2. The text does not fit into the known part of the secret, that is, it does not follow up on the truncated phrase “In Portugal the dogma of faith will always be preserved, etc.”
3. This text is written in a plain sheet of paper, it has no lines.
4. The page does not have 7.5 cm margins, on the contrary, it has a quadrangular frame.
5. This text is not Lúcia's literary style, neither in form nor in narrative.
   
6. Sister Lúcia never signed any of her writings with a fingerprint, it was not her custom, nor did she do so on the envelopes of the Secret.
7. This text appears in the form of a supposed narration by Sr. Lúcia – indirect speech – but the original must correspond, from the beginning, to the words of Our Lady – direct speech.
   
8. This text seems to have several nuances of Brazilian Portuguese, but Lúcia never lived in Brazil.
   
9. The text does not contain certain elements previously mentioned by people who had access to the true text.
10. The sheet of paper has no creases from having been folded, it could never have been inside a small envelope.
    
11. This text has instructions to be released before 1960, but the two real envelopes of the secret shown by Cardinal Bertone have instructions to be opened only in 1960.
    
12. This text says that the envelope must be opened by the Pope, but the envelope of the real Secret says that it must be opened by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.
    
13. The content seems like nonsense, when it says that “the cathedral of Rome must be destroyed”, etc…

You can definitely cross this one off the list.