Here is another example of something that isn't true in relation to common lore regarding Fatima. That the third secret was supposed to be opened no later than 1960 is a common claim, when in fact it wasn't supposed to be opened until after 1960.
John XXIII announced the convocation of the council on January 25, 1959. If he had linked the council itself to the apostasy foretold in the secret and abandoned the idea, then the prophecy would have faded from the popular imagination, since nothing would have happened in 1960 — but could the Church have been saved from some kind of danger? That’s what came to my mind as I read your post.
"You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. If what I say to you is done, many souls will be saved and there will be peace. The war is going to end: but if people do not cease offending God, a worse one will break out during the Pontificate of Pope Pius XI. When you see a night illumined by an unknown light, know that this is the great sign given you by God that he is about to punish the world for its crimes, by means of war, famine, and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to ask for the Consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, and the Communion of reparation on the First Saturdays. If my requests are heeded, Russia will be converted, and there will be peace; if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated. In the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me, and she shall be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world." Another piece of false lore is that if we get the consecration of Russia correct along with the first 5 Saturdays there will be peace. However this was a limited time option and it ended before 1939. We no longer have this option. It is clear that the consecration of Russia and 5 first Saturdays was in relation to WWII. Since WWII happened, we know the threshold required for peace by Our Lady wasn't met. So now we are in the time of the last 4 promises of the last sentence of the 2nd secret, which began after 1939. Some of which people believe have already begun or have already passed. We also realized(are realizing) the fruits of the"if not" result. "if not, she will spread her errors throughout the world, causing wars and persecutions of the Church. The good will be martyred; the Holy Father will have much to suffer; various nations will be annihilated." The idea of a perfect consecration of Russia, one which meets all the purity tests, along with the first 5 Saturdays leading to peace still being an option is incorrect. So the idea that the 1984 consecration doesn't meet the criteria, because it didn't result in the required fruits is misguided, because the peace option from a heaven approved consecration expired 45 years earlier. That being said, in the last sentence Our Lady states that Russia will be consecrated. A statement of an absolute future fact. One that is not contingent on the church meeting purity tests. Which means that the 1984 consecration could have been the one referred to in the last sentence of the second message. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/250681/here-are-resources-on-the-1984-consecration-of-russia When Jesus says "it will be late" to Sr. Lucia in 1936, He means the option for peace will have expired before the consecration happens.
I could be wrong but I don't think so, due to what is in the second secret. It appears to me, correct me if I am wrong, that there was no option after 1939 to stop what is currently unfolding.
Very very pertinent observation. And it may help to recall the gist of that explosive interview from 1957 which greatly upset the Vatican. They may have come to the conclusion that Sister Lucia was something of a loose cannon that would never be brought under control. On December 26, 1957, Father Augustine Fuentes interviewed Sister Lucy at her convent in Coimbra, Portugal. Later, with an imprimatur and the approbation of the Bishop of Fatima, Father Fuentes published the following revelations concerning the Third Secret, revealed to him by Sister Lucy during that interview: Extract of Interview with Sister Lucy Father, the Most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way but without giving any importance to Her message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the message. But believe me, Father, God will chastise the world and this will be in a terrible manner. The punishment from Heaven is imminent. Father, how much time is there before 1960 arrives? It will be very sad for everyone, not one person will rejoice at all if beforehand the world does not pray and do penance. I am not able to give any other details because it is still a secret…. Tell them, Father, that many times the most Holy Virgin told my cousins Francisco and Jacinta, as well as myself, that many nations will disappear from the face of the earth. She said that Russia will be the instrument of chastisement chosen by Heaven to punish the whole world if we do not beforehand obtain the conversion of that poor nation. Father, the devil is in the mood for engaging in a decisive battle against the Blessed Virgin. And the devil knows what it is that most offends God and which in a short space of time will gain for him the greatest number of souls. Thus, the devil does everything to overcome souls consecrated to God, because in this way, the devil will succeed in leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders, thereby the more easily will he seize them. This is the third part of the Message of Our Lady, which will remain secret until 1960. Silencing of the Messengers: Father Fuentes (1959 – 1965)“. The text quoted above is extremely grave. While Sister Lucy’s words recall the essence of the first two parts of the Secret of Fatima (see “The First Part” and “The Second Part“), she also speaks of new themes. These new themes are very probably related to the Third Secret (see “The Third Part“), and are in fact the same themes that notable Fatima scholars, including Frère Michel de la Sainte Trinité, have concluded are contained within the real Third Secret of Fatima. In addition, Sister Lucy’s apprehension concerning the world’s future – for the “imminent” “punishment from Heaven” – is both striking and revealing. For a more thorough discussion of the Third Secret themes that Sister Lucy brought out in this interview with Father Fuentes, see “The RealThird Secret“.
I think what people mean when they say "no later than 1960" is that it was to be opened either upon the death of Sr. Lucy or in 1960 - whichever came first. I think it is more annoying when people say that it was Sr. Lucy's idea to put those conditions on the opening of the third secret. In fact as far as I know, it was clearly written on the envelope - "by the express order [or wishes] of" Our Lady.
The problem with stating it like "no later than 1960" is it implies that it should/could have been opened before 1960. Which just adds to the confusion regarding Fatima. You gave crystal clear instructions, but I don't hear them repeated nearly as often as "no later than 1960". Another easy way to phrase it is that it was to be opened in 1960, but I never hear this.
Sister Lucia would have been under more pressure than anyone on Earth to change the Fatima narrative. But she was a saint and I believe she would have stood firm. But the fact that she was in an enclosed community made her very vulnerable to being lied about and distorted in all kinds of ways. Anytime Mary appears the devil turns up one step behind her. But the false Lucia thing I really find hard to buy into. I just don't see how logically it would have been possible. I just find it too far fetched.
The truth of the matter is after the explosive 1957 interview which set alarm bells ringing in the Vatican Sister Lucia vanishes from the face of the earth for 13 years if I recall correctly. Only to reemerge in the late 60s /early 70s a completely different person. She looks younger, she has fair skin and she is now either completely silent or is as Agnes described above the new “everything is great/God is not upset/there is no chastisement “ sister Lucia. Would the Vatican have been able to change the old Lucia into this new submissive entity during those 13 years of seclusion? I find that some people who refuse to even consider the possibility of a replacement (yes, it is bizarre and hard to believe at first) simply did not take the time to analyze the evidence with an open mind. Maybe start here: https://sisterlucytruth.org/
We are brought up to believe so many things. To accept them as truth, no matter what we see with our eyes, and hear with our ears. It is the feeling in our gut that we must follow. Our intuition.
The Third Secret describes the "leaving the souls of the faithful abandoned by their leaders." This happens because the "leaders" will apostatize. That is the essence of the Third Secret and the apostatization process started with Vatican II and ends with Synodality. Now read the real Third Secret, verified to be in the handwriting of Sr. Lucia: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm The final deciphered version thus reads, line by line: 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)
The handwriting has been verified by experts in forensic handwriting analysis to be that of Sr. Lucia. You can see the grainy facsimiles of the first and second parts of the Secret below. Compare the handwriting to the actual Third Secret and the Vatican fake. The first and second parts use the same handwriting style and the same type of paper. https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/...on_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html Here is the actual Third Part again: And here is the fake third part that Cardinals Sodano and Bertone tried to push on people. It was stated by Cardinals that the third part was on 1 sheet of paper. The Vatican fake was 4 pages long:
That's because you have experienced religious life. You know how very public and integrated into the community it is.
The paper has no folds from being in an envelope and hasn't yellowed over time. Clearly the photograph is recent. It also doesn't sound like Sister Lucia as PF said. Anyone with a good hand could have forged this.
Here is the story about the handwriting analysis: https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htm And here is the LinkedIn page for the handwriting expert: https://es.linkedin.com/in/begoña-slocker-de-arce-03960010
If this text is genuine, it refutes the core of the classical sedevacantist theory by directly mentioning John Paul II.
