May 13 - 95th Anniversary of Fatima -- 3rd Secret is not all revealed
#1
95th Anniversary of Fatima this Sunday, 13 May.  Novena from May 4 through May 12.

Is anybody aware of this new "revelation?

THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA NOT REVEALED

During his visit to Fatima on May 11 2010, Pope Benedict XVI clearly distanced himself from the “official” Vatican line on Fatima that had been promulgated since 2000. This line was set out by the then Archbishop Tarcisio Bertone who, at that time, stated the disclosure of the vision in 2000 “brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil…”

In May 2010, and in response to a specific question on the 3rd secret, Pope Benedict stated amongst other things that the secret concerned the future, not the past, as was indicated by Bertone: “there are indications of the reality of the Church’s future…and therefore what is announced is the suffering of the Church...”

At the time, Vatican journalist Vittorio Messori stated: “Pope Benedict does not consider it part of the past but sees it projected into the future because he is now considering a new fact, the sex scandal, as part of the Secret (and it’s obvious the Pope can’t make all this up, he must have taken it from the complete text).”

Now it would seem clear that the Papal Nuncio to the USA, Archbishop Pietro Sambi, confirmed what was indicated by Pope Benedict in 2010 – ALL IS NOT REVEALED. 
In the AUGUST 2011 EDITION OF “INSIDE THE VATICAN” the Editor-in-Chief, Robert Moynihan discloses a conversation with Archbishop Sambi:

“We were discussing the Third Secret of Fatima, the allegations that the Vatican has not published the entire text as revealed to Sr Lucy, and the response of Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State, in a book where Bertone states there is nothing more to be revealed. Archbishop Sambi said, “Excuse me”. He got up, went out of the room and came back with a book. “Here,” he said, “Do you know this book? You should read it.” It was Christopher Ferrara’s “THE SECRET STILL HIDDEN”. “Wait,” I said, “you are the Pope’s representative in the US and you are urging me to read a book that questions what the Secretary of State wrote?” Archbishop Sambi replied: “All I am saying is that there are interesting things worth reading in this book. And in the end we are all after the truth, aren’t we? The truth is the important thing…”

Here is the response of Chrisopher Ferrara: ‘In the end I had to surrender’ to what the evidence shows. And what it shows, as Socci also concluded, is that “it is certain” that the missing text exists.  Socci and I, like the late Archbishop Sambi, are interested in the truth, not the avoidance of offense.”
Reply
#2
Vincentius this is all on Fr. Gruner's site. Further, Pope Benedict XVI was asked if he had plans to Consecrate Russia. He said he had no current plans but he may have to consider that in future. The really curious part is whenever he lets go of a bomb like this he is on an airplane, and far from the Curia. Equally disturbing, when the Curia finds out they walk his words back to their basic horsefeathers. Curiouser and curiouser.

tim
Reply
#3
Either there is something really bad in the Letter from Sr. Lucia, or there is major blackmail going on.  With Pope JPII's involvement with the Legionairres, I suspect the latter even though the Letter clearly has some very bad news.  The big question is what holds back the Consecration.
Reply
#4
Exactly, James, there is a piece we don't know. These facts concerning Fatima have been uncovered but my spidey sense says there is something missing, or some Pope would have acted. Something like blackmail or equally dangerous is holding them back.

tim
Reply
#5
(05-12-2012, 10:04 AM)Tim Wrote: Vincentius this is all on Fr. Gruner's site. Further, Pope Benedict XVI was asked if he had plans to Consecrate Russia. He said he had no current plans but he may have to consider that in future. The really curious part is whenever he lets go of a bomb like this he is on an airplane, and far from the Curia. Equally disturbing, when the Curia finds out they walk his words back to their basic horsefeathers. Curiouser and curiouser.

tim

Thanks for the info, Tim.  I haven't been there in a while tho at times I get the electronic Fatima Crusader.  I last heard they will be in Rome beginning May 13 and get the pope to do the Consecration.  This is now it seems for the umpteenth time.  Something sinister is holding up the Consecration for no Pope has ever done it, since the time it was requested.  Is God allowing this and if so, for some very good reasons.  Putin is back in power.
Reply
#6
(05-12-2012, 10:27 AM)Tim Wrote: Exactly, James, there is a piece we don't know. These facts concerning Fatima have been uncovered but my spidey sense says there is something missing, or some Pope would have acted. Something like blackmail or equally dangerous is holding them back.

tim


Something so dangerous that it took the life of John Paul I.
Reply
#7
That certainly's a possibility, Maso, but I don't have real facts so I don't know.

Vincentius, i am looking forward to that very much. The videos from those always are eye opening, and maybe this time Pope Benedict will say something.

tim
Reply
#8
One thing I find curious is that the Feast Day for the Apparitions at Fatima is only to be found in the NO.  Shocked

I pretty sure that is true. I have scanned the lists of Feasts for the Blessed Virgin Mary two times in my Angelus Press Missal.

Can someone verify this?

And what do you think the reason for this would be? If Pius XII thought they were so troublesome as reported here, why did he not institute a Feast?

When were they proclaimed to be worthy of belief?

Did the Radicals in the NO or New Church as +Williamson describe them, simply take it captive by recongnizing it only to contain it?

Or was it a nod of the head to the Americanist Heresy that everything was Okie-Dokie with America and the West and it was simply a Cold War strategy on the part of the New Church? 

I don't have an opinion on any of the questions I put forward, but am curious for you experts to weigh in.

Reply
#9
In part it's the timing. St. Lucia didn't write the out the so called third secret until '45. She wouldn't do it unless ordered and then the BVM had to specifically tell it was okay. This was the war, and the digging out and the re-building took time until Pope JohnXXII called for Vatican II. Jacinta and Francisco were beatified in 2000, and that plays in too. They'd want a saint for the Feast, I think.  I think this solves why the NO.

Pope Pius XII was involved with every penny he had and his full detremination to prevent Italy from becoming a Communist State until he passed. Another Pope involved in geo-politics is a partial reason.

His sucessor Pope John Paul II wanted them canonized and at the Mass in Fatima he let the undisclosed part fly, by deviating from the prepared texts by saying we were in the Apocalypse 12:3,4. Which was immediately walked back by the Curia as an event in the past regarding the attempted assassination of the John Paul II. The NO is little involved except to diminish Fatima. The rosary is a thing of the past for them.

As an aside a Msgr. a peritus at Vatican II, told me the reason for the changes in the Mass was priests were tired of little old ladies raying their rosaries at Mass.  My brain tells me the modernists hate the BVM, and wouldn't touch Fatima with a ten foot pole. They don't mind Lourdes because there was no prophecy. They like Muddy Gorgia because it's bogus in my judgement.

You might want to read Gorbachov on the fall of the USSR. He gives the credit to the Polish Pope not Reagan and the Cold War.

tim
Reply
#10
If the 2nd part of the 3rd Secret wasn't correct and proved what a prophet for our times Sister Lucia was, the liberal/modernist crowd would have long ago had it published and used it to show that the church has no guarantee of truth.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)