"When the communism comes back..."

I will go through each of your points one by one (my answers in red):

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'. Sister Lucia lived in Tuy, Spain from 1926 to 1946. She would have been speaking Spanish in the daily life of her convent for almost 20 years, and this could have affected how she wrote the names. Only my guess. But I don't think your point is significant.
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.” There was never any requirement that it "fit into" anything. Read all Three Parts of the Secret together. They flow quite nicely, in my opinion. The Second Part says to do the Consecration and there will be Peace. The Third Part explains what will happen as a result of Our Lady's request for the Consecration being ignored.
3. This text is written in a plain sheet of paper, it has no lines. The facsimiles of First and Second parts of the secret, as you can see on the Vatican website (link), have no lines either.
4. The page does not have 7.5 cm margins, on the contrary, it has a quadrangular frame. The margins and the frame are exactly the same in the true version of the Third part that I posted as in the First and Second parts, as you can see on the Vatican webite [link].
5. This text is not Lúcia's literary style, neither in form nor in narrative. You claim with no proof. Read the First and Second Parts [link]. Taken together, they are very similar in style to the Third Part of the Secret.
   
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. You provide no evidence supporting your assertion. But even if true, this letter was very special, unlike her other writings.
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. As anyone can see on the Vatican website [link], the First part of the Secret starts with a narration by Sr. Lucia, "Our Lady showed us a great sea of fire..." and the Third Part of the Secret also starts with a narration by Sr. Lucia, "Our Lady showed us a Church..."
8. This text seems to have several nuances of Brazilian Portuguese, but Lúcia never lived in Brazil. I'm no expert in Portuguese. Even if your assertion is true, it is not significant.
   
9. The text does not contain certain elements previously mentioned by people who had access to the true text. You assert again with no proof. If you will listen to the interview with Fr. David Nix and Fr. Paul Kramer [link], you will find that Fr. Kramer's account of the contents of the Third Part of the Secret, according to those who read it, agree with the Third Part of the Secret that I posted.
10. The sheet of paper has no creases from having been folded, it could never have been inside a small envelope. The document received by the Tradition in Action people was a facsimile of the original, not the original piece of paper. In fact, the TIA post [here] that I linked to explains why TIA was initially skeptical of the original facsimile. But because the handwriting expert confirmed the handwriting to be that of the real Sr. Lucia, he decided to take another look at it.
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. As you can see on the Vatican website [link], Bertone says, "Before giving the sealed envelope containing the third part of the «secret»‌ to the then Bishop of Leiria-Fatima, Sister Lucia wrote on the outside envelope that it could be opened only after 1960, either by the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria." That instruction on the envelope was not for the Pope. The instruction at the end of the Third Part of the Secret text itself was intended for the Pope.
    
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. Again, you are mixing up two different things. The Third Part of the Secret text has instructions for the Pope, in the words of Our Lady. The instructions on the envelope, intended for the Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria was an instruction from Sr. Lucia herself.
    
13. The content seems like nonsense, when it says that “the cathedral of Rome must be destroyed”, etc… This is your opinion. Does the Apocalypse seem like nonsense to you as well? Should we discount words from Heaven simply because they sound like nonsense to certain people?

----------

And just for the record, here is what I believe is the authentic Third Part of the 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 [years] 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)

 

St. Hildegard's view into the future appears to be drawn upon imagery in Revelation 13. One should respect her for her wisdom and saintliness, but there is a forever tendency to seek out the fulfillment of such understandings in our own day and times. We should rather more importantly cultivate virtues of holiness and submission to God's Will, knowing that Christ Himself will shield us from deception as we take up our crosses and follow Him.

I do admit my curiosity in the not too distant past prodded me to engage in date-setting, but being older now, my probable death in the not too distant future motivates me far more than date-setting once did.

Inviting others to place their cares and loved ones in the care of the Two Hearts is the preferred path for me, now.

 

As I told you, this document is a forgery of such poor quality that it does not deserve to be considered. But everyone believes in what they want and I'm fine with that. Getting into a discussion about the details of this document, for me, would be the equivalent of discussing whether aliens have green or blue eyes. And I'm not saying that this invented text doesn't have some true elements.

I leave you with just one question, not for you to answer but for you to reflect on personally: how is it that a text with instructions for the Pope to carry out before 1960 is placed inside a sealed envelope addressed (not to the Pope but) to Portuguese bishops with direct instructions from Our Lady not to be opened before 1960?

 

I assume you don't speak Portuguese, brother, otherwise you wouldn't consider the Brazilian details in this text irrelevant and perhaps that's why you also can't perceive the difference in lúcia's literary style, perhaps something is lost in the English translations. In fact, unlike what happens with other transcontinental languages such as English, Spanish or French, the differences between European Portuguese and Brazilian Portuguese are enormous, whether in terms of spelling, vocabulary and even syntax, to the point that any literary work produced by an author from one country is translated before entering the publishing market in the other.

I have a few books about Fátima, in one of them entitled "Novos Documentos de Fátima" dozens of letters from Sister Lúcia and other documents are reproduced in addition to her well-known memoirs. And I can guarantee you one thing, from the first to the last, you won't find a single sentence in Brazilian Portuguese or a single word in Spanish. Ask any other Portuguese person who has read them and you will see that I am telling you the truth.

This text is a poor quality forgery of unknown origin. I would bet that it is, although I cannot prove it materially, a text invented and written by someone who speaks Spanish and later translated into Portuguese by using an automatic translator, which almost always does not avoid Brazilian details (web Portuguese is essentially Brazilian, because Brazil's population far exceeds 200 million, compared to just over 10 million people in our country) nor does it translate proper names. And this would explain the name 'Juan Pablo' in Spanish in the text and not 'João Paulo' in Portuguese, while that of Pope Pius is written correctly, as it is the same "Pio" in both Iberian languages.

If you still think this document deserves your credit that's up to you, brother PNF, and I really don't think it could cause you any major problems in interpreting the essentials of Fatima's message.

 

1. The envelope issue is a red herring. I do not think the "envelope" explanation of Bertone can be trusted. See this discussion on that point (with photographic evidence of deception): https://www.salvemariaregina.info/SalveMariaRegina/SMR-157/Third Secret Part IV.htm

2. The real issue for you to explain is why is the handwriting of the Tradition in Action text the verified handwriting of Sister Lucia? Why do you ignore this elephant in the room? Why do you focus on minutia? https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm

 

The person who received the original facsimile and runs the Tradition in Action website is a native of Brazil. As I said, when he originally received the facsimile in 2010, he did not believe it was authentic, and he said as much on the website.

But in 2017, after having a professional handwriting analysis done, he was convinced that the handwriting was that of Sister Lucia. Here again is the handwriting analysis: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm

However, he still thought the original facsimile from 2010 had been electronically modified. This then leads him to try to "decipher" (or reverse engineer) the changes that were made to the 2010 version.
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm

I agree with his findings. You can read them for yourself. He is definitely familiar with the Portuguese language, since he is a native speaker.

 

Ok, maybe he's not familiar enough with the Portuguese language to notice that the text has several Brazilian nuances in the language... I was born and lived in Portugal for almost 50 years and I'm explaining something to you as honestly as I can and without any kind of ulterior motive, if you prefer his explanation, that's fine. It doesn't make the slightest difference to me, it doesn't even make me worried about you because I don't believe that your choice puts your faith at risk, just slightly mistaken.

Now why would I be interested in handwriting examinations of a text whose content is so obviously fake? Just to know if the forger imitates the handwriting of the imitated person well? That's not an elephant in the room, you're seeing the rhino and calling it an elephant.

 

Basto, I wish you well, and I don't want to argue with you. I simply reply because you asked me these questions:

Now why would I be interested in handwriting examinations of a text whose content is so obviously fake? Just to know if the forger imitates the handwriting of the imitated person well?
​

Here is my response:

​

1. You should be interested in the handwriting examinations because you should be interested in the Truth. Handwriting verification is used as evidence in courts of law (https://www.expertinstitute.com/res...xpert-witnesses-role-value-and-admissibility/). Forensic handwriting analysis is a science. To dismiss it with nothing more than your unsupported, anecdotal claims, is irresponsible. The fact is that the handwriting found in the TIA facsimile document has been confirmed, by experts using scientifically-accepted methods, to be the handwriting of Sr. Lucia. Do you have equally strong objective (scientifically-rigorous) evidence to claim otherwise? You have not presented it so far. Here is a good comparison of anecdotal versus scientific evidence: https://sciencepod.net/anecdotal-vs-scientific-evidence

2. The content is not "so obviously fake." The "content" of the Third Part of the Secret deals with the "apostasy in the Church" at the highest level, the Pontificate, a subject that many approved messages from approved seers have verified. We also find verification of the same in St. Paul 2 Thessalonians 2 and theological commentators on St. Paul, many of whom are Doctors of the Church, like St. Thomas Aquinas, who says [link]:

So this text is explained to mean in the temple of God, i.e., in the Church, since many from the church will accept him [Antichrist].​

Therefore, the primary message of the authentic Third Part of the Secret speaks exactly to how "the elect" can be "deceived" as Our Lord warns about in Matthew 24:24. The way "the elect" are deceived is by a false Pope, an Antipope leading Catholics into apostasy.

This is also confirmed in the prophesy of St. Francis of Assisi:

“Act bravely, my brethren; take courage and trust in the Lord. The time is fast approaching in which there will be great trials and afflictions; perplexities and dissensions, both spiritual and temporal, will abound; the charity of many will grow cold, and the malice of the wicked will increase. The devils will have unusual power; the immaculate purity of our Order, and of others, will be so much obscured that there will be very few Christians who obey the true Supreme Pontiff and the Roman Church with loyal ears and perfect charity.

“At the time of this tribulation a man, not canonically elected, will be raised to the Pontificate, who, by his cunning, will endeavour to draw many into error and death. Then scandals will be multiplied, our Order will be divided, and many others will be entirely destroyed, because they will consent to error instead of opposing it.

“There will be such diversity of opinions and schisms among the people, the religious and the clergy, that, except those days were shortened, according to the words of the Gospel, even the elect would be led into error, were they not specially guided, amid such great confusion, by the immense mercy of God….

“Those who persevere in their fervor and adhere to virtue with love and zeal for the truth, will suffer injuries and persecutions as rebels and schismatics; for their persecutors, urged on by the evil spirits, will say they are rendering a great service to God by destroying such pestilent men from the face of the earth…

“Some preachers will keep silent about the truth, and others will trample it under foot and deny it. Sanctity of life will be held in derision even by those who outwardly profess it, for in those days Our Lord Jesus Christ will send them, not a true Pastor, but a destroyer.”

—Works of the Seraphic Father St. Francis of Assisi, published in 1882 by the London-based Catholic publishing house R. Washbourne, 1882, pp. 248-250.​

 

PNF, I'm sorry but you are not all-knowing in this matter and frankly walking a dangerous path.

 

EricH, specifically which part of what I said do you think reflects my "all-knowing" attitude? I am mostly quoting authoritative Church documents such as Sacred Scripture, approved prophecies, commentaries of Doctors of the Church, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, etc.

I am not setting myself up as the authority on these things. The Church and its Saints are the authorities. I am just making the unknown more widely known and trying to connect the dots for people using my God-given faculty of reason. People can and do disagree with my interpretations.

You on the other hand, make fear-mongering comments, as if you know the state of my soul and how God sees me. You don't provide any authoritative Church text to back up your claims. Why is that? Did the Catechism of the Catholic Church not warn of "the Antichrist," who it calls the "supreme religious deception." How is it so hard for you to believe that this supreme deceiver is an Antipope?

Is it possible that you are wrong, EricH? Is it possible that Bergoglio is the "man of sin" warned about by St. Paul? How can you be certain he is not? Are you infallible?

 

Two envelopes and the same phrase handwritten in Portuguese on the outside:

Por ordem expressa de Nossa Senhora, este envelope só pode ser aberto em 1960, por Sua Ex.cia Rev. ma o Senhor Cardeal Patriarca de Lisboa ou por Sua Ex.cia Rev. ma o Senhor Bispo de Leiria. [*]

By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can only be opened in 1960, by His Excellency Rev. by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by His Excellency Rev. but the Lord Bishop of Leiria.
​

*The phrase has a spelling mistake in the word "expressa", Sister Lúcia wrote "expreça".







Therefore, if by express order of Our Lady, the two sealed envelopes of the Secret of Fátima can only be opened in 1960, the letter inside can't have instructions of Our Lady for the Pope to carry out until the deadline of 1960. In fact, the envelope wasn't even addressed to the Pope.

And yes, we all know that Cardinal Bertone later denied the sentence formally written by Sr. Lúcia in the sealed envelopes shown by himself on Italian television. Everyone has the freedom to choose to believe in the words written by the sear of Fátima or the words spoken by Bertone.

 

Yes, the Patriarch of Lisbon and the Bishop of Leiria were told NOT to open the envelope BEFORE 1960. The instruction did not say that the Pope could not open the envelope. The Third Part of the Secret was meant primarily for the Pope himself, not his underlings.

However, those underlings could open the envelope in 1960, because if the Pope had done what Our Lady had told him to do, the Third Part of the Secret would have already been made public by the Pope himself before 1960.

Again, the instructions of Our Lady in the text of the authentic Third Part of the Secret are:

"This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960."
​

Sister Lucia wrote the logical corollary of those words of Our Lady on the envelope addressed to the Bishop of Leiria. Sister Lucia's instructions are perfectly consistent with Our Lady's instructions in the text.

Pope Instructions (in the text): Open whenever you want. Must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

Patriarch/Bishop Instructions (on the envelope): Open only in 1960.

 

I give up brother...

 

When you say Bergoglio might be a "papal usurper," do you mean he might not be lawfully-elected to the papacy? If so, we agree.

usurper
noun
usurp·er yu̇-ˈsər-pər
also
-ˈzər-

plural usurpers
: one who usurps something: such as
a
: one who seizes and holds office, power, position, etc., by force or without right

b
: one who takes the place of another by or as if by force

c
: one who takes or makes use of something without right
​

Here is the Catholic Enclyclopedia entry for Antipope:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

A false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. At various times in the history of the Church illegal pretenders to the Papal Chair have arisen, and frequently exercised pontifical functions in defiance of the true occupant. Hergenröther enumerates thirty in the following order:

• Hippolytus (?), III century
• Novatian, 251
• Felix II, 355-365
• Ursicinus, 366-367
• Eulalius, 418-419
• Laurentius, 498-501
• Constantine II, 767
• Philip, VIII century
• Anastasius, 855
• Leo VIII, 956-963
• Boniface VII, 974
• John XVI, X century
• Gregory, 1012
• Sylvester III, 1044
• Benedict X, 1058
• Honorius II, 1061-72
• Guibert or Clement III, 1080-1100
• Theodoric, 1100
• Aleric, 1102
• Maginulf, 1105
• Burdin (Gregory VIII), 1118
• Anacletus II, 1130-38
• Victor IV, 1159-64
• Pascal III, 1164-68
• Calixtus III, 1168-77
• Innocent III, 1178-80
• Nicholas V, 1328-30
• Robert of Geneva (Clement VII), 20 September, 1378 to 16 September, 1394
• Amadeus of Savoy (Felix V), November, 1439 to April, 1449

​

 

Another question. How do you square your timeline with the one laid out by St. Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2? He says that "the day of the Lord" will come only AFTER there is a revolt [apostasy] led by the Antichrist.

2 That you be not easily moved from your sense, nor be terrified, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by epistle, as sent from us, as if the day of the Lord were at hand. 3 Let no man deceive you by any means, for unless there come a revolt [apostasy] first, and the man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, 4 Who opposeth, and is lifted up above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself as if he were God. 5 Remember you not, that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
​

So the "revolt" is first, then the "Day of the Lord."

When did St. Paul tell them these things about "the Day of the Lord?" He told them in 1 Thessalonians 5, where he says that there will be an earthly "peace" just BEFORE the "Day of the Lord":

2 For yourselves know perfectly, that the day of the Lord shall so come, as a thief in the night. 3 For when they shall say, peace and security; then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as the pains upon her that is with child, and they shall not escape.
​

So the time of apparent earthly "peace and security" is before the "Day of the Lord" also.

St. Paul's timeline looks like this:

Revolt/Apostasy of the Antichrist --> Apparent Earthly Peace -->Day of the Lord​

Can you tell me any Church Fathers or scriptural references to back up your claim that an earthly peace precedes the Antichrist's apostasy?
Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church seems to agree with St. Paul's timeline:

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.​

 

"Citing" authoritative texts is irrelevant when u misuse them to support your own interpretation. This is what the protestants do with the bible. I won't get into it anymore other than to say you're walking a lone path. There are literally no cardinals or bishops that would support your interpretations on this.