Flaws in the "two-document" Third Secret theory...
"My child, they converse of the secret that I gave at Fatima. It is a simple explanation. It could not be fully revealed because of the drastic nature of My message. How I warned and warned that satan would enter into the highest realms of the hierarchy in Rome. The Third Secret, My child, is that satan would enter into My Son's Church." – Our Lady of the Roses, May 13, 1978
No Fatima expert, until 2000, has ever suggested that there were two separate documents, each having only part of the Third Secret of Fatima. We will explore some possibilities of why this “two-document theory” has been accepted by some, even by those who should know better.
Some Fatima experts may be putting their whole stock in a mistranslation of a particular key sentence, dealing with the transfer of the Third Secret from Sister Lucy to Bishop da Silva. Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity quotes from Sister Lucy’s January 9, 1944 letter to Bishop da Silva:
“I have written what you asked me; God willed to try me a little, but finally this was indeed His will: [the text] is sealed in an envelope and it [the sealed envelope] is in the notebooks…” (Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, p. 47)
But in the book, Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph by Frere François de Marie des Agnes, we have a different translation of the exact same letter by Sister Lucy:
“I have written what you asked me; God willed to try me a little, but finally this was indeed His will: [the text] is sealed in an envelope and it is on a piece of notepaper….” (p. 7)
This is a huge difference in translation. From the latter translation, there is clearly no reference to the Third Secret being in Sister Lucy’s notebook, but rather “on a piece of notepaper.” This difference in translation is very important and could be the cause of a great deal of confusion.
Frere François indicates that Sister Lucy did not keep the Third Secret in her notebook, but chose to write it down in the form of a letter:
“Undoubtedly at the request of Canon Galamba, the Bishop had proposed that Lucy write the text of the Third Secret in her notebooks of spiritual notes, or put it in an envelope sealed with wax. Lucy had chosen that latter solution.” (p. 7)
Was a notebook merely used to discreetly carry the Third Secret letter until it was received by Bishop da Silva?
When the Third Secret was transferred from Sister Lucy to Bishop da Silva, a notebook may have been used merely as a discreet way of carrying the Third Secret, perhaps to keep the letter away from prying eyes. Brother Michael writes:
“The seer [Sister Lucy] handed the Bishop of Gurza the notebook in which she had slipped the envelope containing the Secret. That same evening, the bishop placed the envelope into the hands of Bishop da Silva..." (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 49)
Two separate Third Secret documents?
To have two separate documents, each bearing only a part of the Third Secret, would be illogical. Sister Lucy, who was so prudent and solicitous that the words of Our Lady of Fatima be conveyed in an authentic way, would not have chosen a route so fraught with dangers. To have physically separated the Third Secret into two separate documents, one part in a sealed envelope and another part supposedly in a large notebook, would have unnecessarily compromised the integrity of the Third Secret. What if the two documents became separated? Wasn’t this an unnecessary risk in separating the two texts? Would it not be more convenient and safer to have the Third Secret on a single document?
One Third Secret document, in a sealed envelope, is the only evidence we have from eyewitnesses. As Frere François writes:
“She [Sister Lucy] did not entrust that envelope to the Post Office, nor to any messenger. She did not want to transmit it to Bishop da Silva except through the hands of a bishop. That was Bishop Manuel Maria Ferreira da Silva, titular Archbishop of Gurza, who on June 17, 1944, received it from the hands of Lucy and delivered it that same evening to Bishop da Silva.” (p. 7)
In fact, it is recorded that Bishop da Silva himself, on December 8, 1945, placed the envelope by Sister Lucy in a larger envelope also sealed with wax, on which he wrote in his own hand:
“This envelope with its contents is to be given to His Eminence, dom Manuel, Patriarch of Lisbon, after my death. Leiria, December 8, 1945. José, Bishop of Leiria.”
The envelope was then placed in the safe of the episcopal curia, from which it never emerged except on rare occasions to be shown to a few privileged souls. One such privileged soul was Bishop Venancio, who held the Third Secret envelope up to the light:
“Bishop Venancio related that once he was by himself, he took the great envelope of the Secret and tried to look through it and see the contents. In the bishop’s large envelope he discerned a smaller envelope, that of Lucy, and inside this envelope an ordinary sheet of paper with margins on each side of three quarters of a centimeter. He took the trouble to note the size of everything. Thus the final Secret of Fatima was written on a small sheet of paper.” (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 481)
Bishop Venancio, who was trusted by Bishop da Silva to hold the Third Secret envelope in his hand, would surely have been shown a complementary document that also bore the Third Secret, if such a document existed. But no, Bishop Venancio mentions only an envelope, not an additional notebook. Bishop Venancio’s statement corroborates the fact that the Third Secret was in an envelope, on a single piece of paper. Not four pages, as foisted upon the world on June 26, 2000.
Furthermore, if there were two Third Secret documents, Bishop da Silva (who was the first custodian of the Third Secret document) would have shown equal care to both of these documents. But there is no record of Bishop da Silva saying there was a notebook containing the Third Secret in his episcopal safe, or any other person saying so. Rather, the only evidence is of a single envelope emerging from Bishop da Silva’s safe.
The evidence trail for two separate Third Secret documents runs dry again.
These Fatima experts also cite discrepancies in dates when the Third Secret was reportedly delivered to the Vatican. Two dates have been given for the arrival of the Third Secret document to the Vatican: April 4, 1957 and April 16, 1957; a difference of twelve days.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the Third Secret was in two parts: one part in an envelope and another part in a notebook. Now we know that Bishop da Silva was the custodian of the Third Secret, in its entirety. We know that the envelope of the Third Secret was in Bishop da Silva’s episcopal safe. Presumably, if there was a second part of the Third Secret in a notebook, that notebook would also be in his episcopal safe. For those who hold the opinion that the two different reported dates for the transfer of the Third Secret (April 4, 1957 and April 15, 1957) represents “proof” for the two-document theory, do they also contend that the two alleged parts of the Third Secret were sent SEPARATELY? Sent at DIFFERENT TIMES? Sent by DIFFERENT COURIERS? For what reason?
As we mentioned previously, there is no eyewitness confirming that Bishop da Silva kept a notebook (containing a part of the Third Secret) in his episcopal safe. This lack of even a single eyewitness could certainly mean that such a Third Secret notebook does not exist.
There are several possible (and more probable) reasons for the two different reported dates (April 4 and April 16, 1957) for when the Third Secret arrived at the Vatican. One possible explanation for the different dates is that April 4, 1957 was the date the Third Secret truly arrived at the Vatican. The April 16, 1957 date could be the date on which Pope Pius XII read the Third Secret.
Another possible explanation is simply human error. Two different individuals could have been quoted as to the arrival date of the Third Secret to the Vatican. One of these two individuals must be wrong. To err is human, and an example here is in order: a certain prophecies “expert” was making the talk-show radio rounds, discussing the June 26, 2000 document. He repeatedly referred to the Vatican’s May 2000 document; he was wrong. He had confused the date on which it was announced the Holy Father had decided to release it (May 2000), and the date it was released in print (June 26, 2000). A discrepancy of several weeks, just as there is a twelve-day discrepancy between April 4 and April 16, 1957.
It is illogical that Sister Lucy would have cut the Third Secret in half and put it in two separate documents. Eyewitnesses only mention an envelope (never a notebook). Furthermore, it is illogical that two different couriers brought two different parts of the Third Secret at two different dates; a single courier would have been sufficient. The difference in dates (April 4 and April 16, 1957) has a more logical explanation in possibly (1) an erroneously reported date; or (2) one date referring to the physical arrival of the Third Secret to the Vatican, and the second date referring to the physical reading of the Third Secret (the “arrival”, so to speak, of the Third Secret into the hands of Pope Pius XII when at that moment he read the text, which would be a much more significant date to record anyway).
If there is no greater “evidence” (for the two-document Third Secret theory) proposed than conflicting dates and apparent reliance on a mistranslation, why then are some Fatima experts putting such great stock in this theory?
Perhaps because the only alternative is to say that two of the highest cardinals in the Church put together a forgery and, in the name of the Church, disseminated this forgery throughout the world. The two-document theory provides a pretext to detour around this horrible, but factual conclusion. But this horrible conclusion is entirely logical and consistent with one message:
Our Lady of the Roses.
Many people do not believe that the June 26, 2000 document is the REAL Third Secret, for several very good reasons, which include:
Numerous eyewitnesses affirm that the REAL Third Secret is on one
sheet of paper (June 26, 2000 document is four pages),
· the REAL Third Secret had around 20-25 lines (June 26, 2000 document has 62 lines),
· The first line of the REAL Third was “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc.” This line is nowhere to be found in the June 26, 2000 document.
We know from the Fatima expert Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity that this line is, “in all certainty”, part of the REAL Third Secret:
“Along with the many historical facts and positive criteria already pointed out, in effect we are aware of a little sentence which is, in all certainty, an element of the authentic Third Secret. It is this sentence which gives us the key: ‘Em Portugal se conservara sempre o dogma da fé, etc. In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved, etc.
“This little sentence which, curiously, has gone unnoticed by the majority of Fatima historians, is obviously of vital importance. Since Lucy’s Memoirs were published in their integral text, in effect we can make a decisive critical remark: in the third Memoir, written in July-August 1941, Sister Lucy had been content to mention the existence of a third part of the Secret, but as yet she had said nothing about it. A few months later, in her fourth Memoir, written between October-December 1941, she decided to say more. She recopied almost word for word the text of the third Memoir, but adding after the final words—‘and a certain period of peace will be granted to the world’—the new sentence: ‘Em Portugal se conservara sempre o dogma da fé, etc.’
“Thus we now know the first sentence of the final Secret. This addition is definitely significant. For it is certain that Sister Lucy did not insert it here out of levity, but in the specific intention showing us, in a veiled manner, the essential contents of the third Secret. Indeed, in 1943, when Bishop da Silva had asked her to write down the text, and she was encountering insurmountable obstacles in obeying this order, she declared that it was not absolutely necessary to do so, ‘since in a certain manner she had said it.’ [VSF (Spanish edition), Fr. Alonso, p. 64]. Undoubtedly she was alluding to the ten words discreetly added in December, 1941, to the text of the great Secret—but added so discreetly that almost nobody noticed them. However, they are very enlightening when we stop and think about them.” (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, pp. 683-684)
December 17, 1927
May 29, 1930
November 17, 1935
alleged third secret January 3, 1944
April 13, 1980
July 13, 1989
In July of 2000, TLDM sought the expertise of Speckin Forensic Laboratories to examine the Vatican’s June 26, 2000 document. The writing expert we worked with was Robert Kullman. In a July 10, 2000 interview with Mr. Kullman, he told us:
“When you do a handwriting comparison you take the known writings and you examine all the known writings. And the known writings are spanning almost 50, almost 60 years. And the consistent repetitive habits we find in the known writing, that’s what we look into the question and say, ‘are those, do we find those in the questioned [June 26, 2000 document]?’ Basically what we are doing is we’re not. We’re finding consistencies, oh, capital ‘S’, for instance, consistent in ’30, ’80, and ’89, are different in this questioned letter [June 26, 2000 Vatican document]. It should fall into place. And there are a number of other ones…. There are a number of other things that are not falling into place. Every time we try to find a consistent habit in the known, and say ‘is it consistent in the contested, does it agree in the questioned?’ it is not agreeing, which would be an indicator—the indications are that the two are not by the same person.”
On July 11, 2000, Mr. Kullman gave his professional conclusion regarding the June 26, 2000 Vatican document. He wrote:
“...it is my opinion, based on the documents examined, that the Questioned Document 'Third Secret' can not be identified with the purported known writings of Sister Lucy." (Page 1, Page 2).
We asked our writing expert, Robert Kullman, many other questions regarding this document. He emphasized that an examination of the original June 26, 2000 Vatican document could determine many factors: Sister Lucy’s fingerprints, the fingerprints of those who read it, age of the ink, if the June 26, 2000 had been traced from another document, etc. Mr. Kullman also noticed that the June 26, 2000 document was on lined paper. This caught his attention because lined paper was a rare commodity during World War II. Perhaps Sister Lucy did have access to lined paper. But if it was factually established that lined paper was not available to Sister Lucy at this time (January 1944), this would be another indication of forgery.
We also asked Mr. Kullman about the quality of handwriting. We were greatly concerned about one detail: why did Sister Lucy demonstrate the highest writing quality of her life (if the June 26, 2000 document was authentic) only months after recovering from a life-threatening case of pleurisy? In a phone conversation on August 15th, 2000, Robert Kullman replied to us:
"Correct me if I'm wrong: what you are saying, 'does someone's writing go along at a certain time frame, say for a ten-year period and they write a certain style. And then say, for a two year time period they change and write a different style and then they pick up two years after that and start writing to the previous style?' NO THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, LOGICALLY. See, writing may progress somewhat. It doesn't regress to what you wrote years ago."
We then asked him what he would check into if he saw an example of this phenomena occurring in a series of handwriting samples (a consistent handwriting style changing radically for a short period and then resuming to the original handwriting style), what questions he would ask. He replied, "Well, first off I would check into seeing if the radical change was true known writing. That's the first thing." He then went on to say, "There's one of two things: either it's not that person's known writing or something happened to that person. Either they broke their writing arm and they had to write with a different arm, or they went through some medical problem that caused them not to write their normal writing at that particular time, because writing is affected by physical and mental items. So something could happen to you to make your writing change." We then mentioned to him that such a handwriting change would generally be for the worse in this scenario. Robert Kullman replied, "Oh, definitely. Oh yeah, it doesn't get better. You can never—you can't write better than you can write."
Another handwriting expert stated:
“The hand that penned the
presumed forgery appears to have left traces of the effort in the writing. Great
care was taken in that article in that the 'weight' of the stroke is almost
flat, relative to the plane of the paper, throughout the whole document. Humans
don't as a rule write that way. As an expert on legibility (among other things),
I can state with some confidence that except for persons trained in the ritual
art of copying or calligraphy, humans leave impressions in the act of writing
which betrays things like how the body was held at the time of writing. Such
things as whether there is something to act as a wrist brace and how far away
from the writing surface, all leave impressions in the act of writing.
“The offered document has none of these apparent. In fact the absence of normal human writing 'quavers' (as they are known in the trade) suggests with some certainty that this person was trained to penmanship as an adult. Such people are rare these days, except in the catholic and orthodox (russian/greek) churches. I discount calligraphers even amateurs as their styles are not so clearly Roman.”
One Fatima expert, Fr. Paul Kramer, has suggested that this 4-page letter could have been generated by computer software: “… can we be so sure that ‘Sister Lucy’s’ lines are not the product of software capable of reproducing someone’s handwriting and available for less than one hundred dollars?” (Fr. Paul Kramer, The Devil’s Final Battle, p. 138) This possibility would explain the mechanical precision and absence of quavers in the document.
Furthermore, the June 26, 2000 document is missing Sister Lucy’s signature, which is on all her other letters.
“The devil has used a Father of the Society of Jesus” – Sister Lucy
Another disturbing factor in the Vatican’s June 26, 2000 document is the fact that Fr. Dhanis, S.J., one of the greatest enemies of the Fatima apparitions, was quoted favorable in this Vatican document. Certainly the favorable Vatican attitude was not that of Sister Lucy. In fact, one Jesuit disciple of the erring Fr. Dhanis prompted Sister Lucy to write (in a January 11, 1946 letter to Father Aparacio), “the devil has used a Father of the Society of Jesus”:
“I did not speak to him and I have not answered the others, and for this I have been much grieved, since it concerns the consecration of Russia. I have not been able to do it because more than ever, I have strict orders in regard to correspondence and visits. That does not surprise me. The works of God are always persecuted. What grieves me solely, is that the devil has used a Father of the Society of Jesus. I do not know what he has told Reverend Mother Provincial. But, the poor man, let us leave him! I believe he thinks he is doing a good thing. The Good God will know how to draw His own glory out of everything.”
Fr. Dhanis had made his first attack against the Fatima apparitions in 1944.
Let us repeat: there is no eyewitness that confirms that any part of the Third Secret is in an alleged notebook. Consistently, eyewitnesses have constantly affirmed the existence of only an envelope. Those who were shown the Third Secret by Bishop da Silva were given an envelope only, not an envelope and a notebook. Conclusions must be based on real evidence, not conjecture. Let us now propose some REAL evidence, of actual documents and actual statements that support what the REAL Third Secret is all about. We will examine: (1) the Neus Europa “Third Secret,” (2) mention of the year 1972 in the REAL Third Secret and (3) clues to the REAL Third Secret given by the Akita apparitions.
(1) Neus Europa “Third Secret”
A version of the “Third Secret” published in the German publication Neus Europa is a REAL document that merits special attention. In 1971, the Fatima expert Father Messias Dias Coelho said that he was hesitant to reject the Neues Europa “Third Secret” as false, for two reasons:
“The affirmation recently made to me by an eminent Cardinal, whose name we will keep secret for the moment. According to him, the text in question contains some exaggerations (which we had already noted in 1964), but fundamentally it corresponds to the truth. 2. The fact that the central nucleus of the text in question, as moreover everybody recognizes, is the prediction of a future climate of division within the Church, a prophecy which was unbelievable eight years ago (the publication of Neues Europa dates from 1963), but is a reality today!” (Mensagem de Fatima, No. 86, September-October, 1971)
The “eminent Cardinal” was Cardinal Ottaviani, who gave the endorsement of the article in the German publication Neues Europa in 1963. According to Father Messias Dias Coelho, Cardinal Ottaviani said that the Neues Europa Third Secret fundamentally “corresponds to the truth.” Regarding to the text printed by Neus Europa, Cardinal Ottaviani reportedly exclaimed, “Publish 10,000 copies! Publish 20,000 copies! Publish 30,000 copies!” (personal testimony of Msgr. Corrado Balducci. This fact is also attested to by Marco Tosatti in his book Il Secreto Non Svelato, (The Secret Not Revealed), Edizioni Piemme Spa, Casale Monferrato, Italy, May 2002, p. 86). Cardinal Ottaviani read the REAL Third Secret, as he himself affirmed on February 11, 1967, during a press conference at the time of a meeting of the Pontifical Marian Academy in Rome:
“I, who have had the grace and the gift to read the text of the Secret—although I too am held to secrecy because I am bound by the Secret…” (The Whole Truth About Fatima, Vol. III, p. 727).
Therefore, the statements of Cardinal Ottaviani on the Third Secret bear extreme weight.
On October 16, 1978, the newspaper L’Osservatore della Domenica ran an article by a Vatican prelate, Msgr. Corrado Balducci, a clerk in the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. He wrote that a text reportedly containing the Third Secret “was reprinted by Neus Europa, which published it at Stuttgart on October 15, 1963.” Msgr. Balducci then went on to quote from the Neus Europa Third Secret at length (see The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, pp. 657-659). Why would a Vatican prelate give such great credence to the Neus Europa Third Secret, unless he knew that at least part of this Neus Europa Third Secret was genuine?
Furthermore, there are several lines from the Neus Europa Third Secret which match, almost word for word, the message of Our Lady of the Roses. It is these almost identical sentences that we believe are REAL sentences from the REAL Third Secret of Fatima. (Read more...)
(2) the year 1972
According to a November 1, 1963 statement by Louis Emrich (the person who originally published the Neus Europa “Third Secret”), the most important part of the Third Secret was not available for publication, a part that mentioned a specific date:
“The most important part,
the quintessence of the revelations of the Mother of God was unavailable to us.
In this case it concerns words of the Holy Virgin predicting events which
will take place at Rome and which will happen to the Vatican and the papacy at
the dawn of day J, when humanity will be delivered to the divine
chastisement. The passage related to it, and which forms the basis and
conclusion of the third prediction of Fatima, was integrally detached from it
and remains a state secret of the Vatican, until a new order is given.”
Most Fatima experts haven’t a clue what to make of this “Day J” reference, and so they say nothing. Keep in mind for the moment that within the Vatican’s June 26, 2000 document, no date was given.
Bearing in mind this “Day J”, consider what Pope John XXIII said when he read the REAL Third Secret: “This makes no reference to my time…” Here is a clear indication that there is some definite date mentioned in the Third Secret. How else could Pope John XXIII make such a statement, unless there was a specific date mentioned in the Third Secret which he believed he would not live long enough to see? And in fact he was right. The year 1972, mentioned in the Third Secret, Pope John XXIII did not live to see but rather his successor, Pope Paul VI.
That the year 1972 was mentioned in the Third Secret was first published by Mother Godinho in her letter to Pope Pius XII. Because of extraneous material within Mother Godinho’s letter and for lack of an adequate explanation for this circumstance, many Fatima experts entirely reject this letter of Mother Godinho. Basically, they have thrown out the baby with the bath water. But Our Lady of the Roses explained on October 3, 1991 that the claim of Mother Godinho, that she had been told the Third Secret by Jacinta, was true. But Our Lady mentioned that Mother Godinho has not faithfully transmitted this Third Secret to Pope Pius XII and only a few fragments of the genuine Third Secret remained in Mother Godinho’s letter to Pope Pius XII. One of these genuine fragments was the mention of the year 1972. (Read more...)
Our Lady of the Roses message tells us, “Satan, Lucifer in human form, entered into Rome in the year 1972. He cut off the rule, the role of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI.” (Our Lady of the Roses, September 7, 1978)
Furthermore,a Shrine worker asked Veronica which date, 1960 or 1972, was the year that satan had entered the Church. Veronica said 1972 was the date, but she could not elaborate more because it dealt with the Third Secret of Fatima.
(3) Akita, Japan apparitions
Bishop John Ito, on April 22, 1984, after eight years of investigating the Akita apparitions and after consulting with the Holy See (including Cardinal Ratzinger), approved the messages of Our Lady of Akita. He authorized, throughout his entire diocese, the veneration of our Holy Mother of Akita. A dossier was turned over to Cardinal Ratzinger at the Vatican who, after studying it for himself, reaffirmed that the events were credible and reliable and worthy of belief by all Catholics. Howard Dee, former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, said in a 1998 interview with Inside the Vatican magazine: “Bishop Ito [the local bishop, now deceased] was certain Akita was an extension of Fatima, and Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.” Part of the Akita message reads: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops. The priests who venerate me will be scorned and opposed by their confreres. Churches and altars will be sacked; the Church will be full of those who accept compromises and the demon will press many priests and consecrated souls to leave the service of the Lord."
Cardinal Ratzinger on the Third Secret - Only months after Bishop Ito approved the Akita apparitions, Cardinal Ratzinger was interviewed on November 11, 1984 by Jesus magazine, a publication of the Pauline Sisters. Within this 1984 interview (titled "Here is Why the Faith is in Crisis"), published to millions in Italy, Cardinal Ratzinger acknowledged that he had read the REAL Third Secret and that it speaks of "The dangers threatening the faith and the life of the Christian, and therefore the world, and also the importance of the last times." Cardinal Ratzinger said that the Third Secret had been suppressed since 1960 “to avoid confusing religious prophecy with sensationalism.” He also said, "But the things contained in this Third Secret correspond to what is announced in Scripture and are confirmed by many other Marian apparitions...." Howard Dee, former Philippine ambassador to the Vatican, stated that "Cardinal Ratzinger personally confirmed to me that these two messages, of Fatima and Akita, are essentially the same.” (Inside the Vatican magazine, 1998) Therefore, when Cardinal Ratzinger mentioned in his interview that the Third Secret corresponds to "other Marian apparitions," this reference includes the Akita apparitions. But in a subsequent publication of the same Ratzinger interview in the famous Ratzinger Report, this reference was mysteriously deleted. Apparently, Cardinal Ratzinger had said too much.
How are the Third Secret and the Akita apparitions the same? (Remember that Cardinal Ratzinger had received a dossier of information on the Akita apparitions prior to his interview with Jesus magazine, so this information was fresh in his mind). We believe the following line from the Akita apparitions is the key: "The work of the devil will infiltrate even into the Church in such a way that one will see cardinals opposing cardinals, bishops against bishops." A WorldNetDaily article also makes this same connection. (Read more...)
At this point, if we can prove that "bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal" is part of the REAL Third Secret, we have yet another piece of evidence to affirm that the June 26, 2000 Vatican document was a forgery.
Our Lady of the Roses message supplies this proof we are seeking:
"My children, long ago I warned you from Fatima, I warned you through many voice-boxes throughout your world that the time will come when you will embark upon a stormy sea, and it shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, and satan shall set himself in your midst." - Our Lady of the Roses, November 20, 1976
This line is also in the Neus Europa Third Secret: “Cardinal will oppose cardinals and bishops will oppose bishops, satan will enter into their very midst.”
Where is "bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal" in the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document?
Connect the dots.
"My children, long ago I warned you from Fatima, I warned you through many voice-boxes throughout your world that the time will come when you will embark upon a stormy sea, and it shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, and satan shall set himself in your midst. He shall maneuver and pit you and play you against each other in his plan to destroy My Son's House. Recognize what is happening now upon your earth. I say unto you, O pastors in My Son's House: if you do not listen, if you continue to proceed upon your present course, you ask for the heavy hand of My Son to come upon you. Your world shall be cleansed with a baptism of fire.” – Our Lady of the Roses, November 20, 1976
Directives from Heaven... http://www.tldm.org/directives/directives.htm
D10 - Consecrate Russia PDF
D105 - Fatima PDF
D127 - Vatican II PDF
D130 - THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 2 - Satan entered the Church in 1972 PDF
D131 - THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 3 - Satan entered the highest realms of the hierarchy PDF
D132 - THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 4 - There shall be bishop against bishop and cardinal against cardinal, as satan has set himself in their midst. PDF
D133 - THIRD SECRET EXPLAINED: PART 5 - The Apocalypse / Revelations PDF
Third Secret of Fatima:
The REAL Third Secret of Fatima explains the chaos
Evidence of a fabrication: Sister Lucy's handwriting notably different in document released by Vatican as the "third secret"
Evidence of a fabrication: The REAL Third Secret of Fatima specifically mentioned the year 1972, as Jacinta revealed to Mother Godinho
Evidence of a fabrication: World-famous forensic expert believes Vatican's released "third secret" is not in Sister Lucy's authentic handwriting
More evidence of a fabrication: Jacinta's vision of the Holy Father, "the poor little one," was Pope Paul VI
Two big blunders of the Fatima experts
Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached
Third Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so"
Third Secret: "Words" of Our Lady, not a vision
Flaws in the "two-document" Third Secret theory
Which Third Secret meets the litmus test?
The Deception of the Century - the Impostor Pope Paul VI
Consecration of Russia:
The REAL Sister Lucy has repeatedly stated that Russia must be consecrated by name
Besiege the Pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady
The “conversion of Russia”: what does it really mean?
The meaning of the "consecration" of Russia
Our Lady of the Roses warns: Russia has not been consecrated properly; Pope John Paul II must consecrate Russia, not the world
Pope concerned about persecution of the Catholic Church in Russia
Russia's persecution of the Catholic Church back in high gear
Sister Lucy was silenced
Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached
A forgery to replace the REAL Third Secret; an impersonator to replace the REAL Sister Lucy
The REAL Sister Lucy has repeatedly stated that Russia must be consecrated by name
Sister Lucy "will bear witness" that Jacinta appeared at Our Lady of the Roses Shrine
Rescind the Vatican-Moscow Treaty
| Home | Introduction | Prophecies | Directives | Order Form | Testimonies | Veronica | News | Photos | Bible | Magazine | Newsletters | Radio Show |
We encourage everyone to print or email copies of this web page to all the Bishops and all the clergy. Also, send this page to as many people as possible.
The electronic form
of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright © These Last Days Ministries, Inc. 1998 - 2005 All rights reserved.
P.O. Box 40
Lowell, MI 49331-0040
Revised: April 02, 2012