What became known as ‘the Third Secret’ is part of a message which Our Lady revealed to three children: Lucia dos Santos, Francisco and Jacinta Marto, at Fatima Portugal on 13th July 1917. After showing them a vision of hell, she said: ‘You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the Church devotion to my Immaculate Heart’ (this ‘First Secret’ led on to the ‘Second’): ‘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 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, famines and persecutions of the Church and of the Holy Father. To prevent this, I shall come to request 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 to suffer much; various nations will be annihilated’ (then came the Third Secret, and she concluded) ‘but in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph. The Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and it will be converted, and a period of peace will be granted to the world.’
A CRITIQUE OF THE VATICAN’S PUBLICATION OF 2000
Our Lady made it known that she wanted the Third Secret to be revealed in 1960, but when that year came the Vatican announced that it would not be revealing it. However by referring to ‘the words spoken by Our Lady’, it did confirm that it was a verbal message. But… when in June 2000 the Vatican published what it claimed was the Secret, instead of a verbal message it gave an account of a vision. This is Significant Vatican Anomaly No 1. And that account stands in stark contrast to the words above – that precede and come after it. Our Lady’s words are precise in their meaning. This explains why they could be remembered by Lucia who was then ten. But in contrast the account of the vision is couched in the language of symbolism. So what the Vatican implies is that Lucia could comprehend a message that switched from words to symbols… and then back to words: significant Vatican Anomaly No 2.
And anyway as the whole message was to be kept secret, why the need for symbolism? Notice how ‘Russia’ comes into both the Second Secret and the end of the message. Thus in the former Our Lady revealed that Russia would persecute the Church, and in the latter she stated ‘in the end, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia to me and it will be saved.’ We should therefore expect that the Vatican account of the Third Secret should also refer explicitly to Russia: but it doesn’t: Significant Vatican Anomaly No 3. There is another significant omission.. For Sr Lucia once revealed that there are words that precede the Third Secret, namely ‘In Portugal the doctrines of the faith will always be preserved’… This, both confirms that the Secret is a verbal message, and implies that those same doctrines will be attacked elsewhere in the world in a process that will lead to the Third Secret. But in the ‘commentary’ accompanying its account, the Vatican makes no reference to these important words: Significant Vatican Anomaly No 4.
Here then is the essential part of the ‘vision’ which the Vatican claims to be the Third Secret: ‘And we saw in an immense light that is God, something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it – a Bishop dressed in White and other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins, and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, priests and men and women religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions.’ (The account ends..) ‘Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the martyrs and with it sprinkled those making their way to God’.
The Vatican claims that this refers to the rise of Communism and the attack on the Pope. But it begs the question, why if Our Lady was speaking to Lucia, not simply tell her that? And the ‘secret’ does not even sustain the interpretation that the Vatican puts on it. It foretells the death of ‘a Bishop in white’. But how could that refer to the attack on Pope John Paul II in 1981 – when he survived? The vision reveals a whole procession attacked by soldiers, culminating in the death of a ‘Bishop in white’. But in Rome in 1981 – there was only one assailant, who attacked the Pope only, and he survived: – Significant Vatican Anomaly No 5.
Look at it the other way round. If he had been killed, and the Vatican ‘secret’ had claimed he would live – would we be hailing it as the real Secret? But this discrepancy with what actually happened, raises the possibility that this is a hoax. Where would we begin to look, if we suspected a hoax? What ‘tell-tale signs’ would there be…? When people investigate hoaxes in the art world, they look for clues that give away the lack of authenticity. What I intend to do is put the ‘Vatican version’ under the magnifying glass, to seek any anomalies. We should not be ‘fazed’ by the fact that this version emanates from the Vatican. To continue our analogy, if the Vatican had a hoax painting and a Cardinal had given it a certificate of authenticity, it would remain a hoax nevertheless. All the Cardinals in the Vatican cannot make a hoax genuine. The ‘secret’, just like any other possession in the Vatican, will require to pass certain tests if its authenticity is to be confirmed. But what approach shall we make? Remember the ‘art-hoax’? The art-detective looks for attempts to ‘mimic’ a recognised ‘master’ with crude, or not so crude, signs of imitation. Can we discern such signs? Consider the start of the account: ‘we saw in an immense light that is God, something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it – a Bishop dressed in White…’ – and compare it with Sr Lucia’s account of an apparition of Our Lady on 13.5.17: ‘she opened her hands communicating to us a light so intense that its rays penetrated our hearts making us see ourselves in God, Who was that light, more clearly than we see ourselves in the best of mirrors’ (4th Memoir).
Note the reiteration of ‘a light which is God’ – and people seen in mirrors. The resemblance is surely striking. Put yourself in the position of someone trying to create a false ‘third secret’. The basic ideas you would wish to convey are the rise of Communism and an attack on the Pope. The idea of ‘a procession’ to symbolise the Church is straightforward enough and not too difficult to arrive at. The Church is enduring a time of persecution from Communists, which can be depicted as a procession moving up a hill where it is attacked by soldiers, some of whom attack the Pope. Now if one were to express that scenario in such stark terms, it would arouse suspicion. It lacks sophistication. It needed ‘local colour’ to ‘set the scene’ – just like the art-forger who adds bold flourishes to complement his design. And if we examine the Vatican’s ‘secret’ we find many such superfluous touches… Thus the ‘cross’ towards which the procession moves is ‘of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark’; the Bishop moves ‘half-trembling with faltering steps’, and is killed by soldiers firing ‘bullets and arrows’.
The account concludes: ‘Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God’ – (an aspersorium is a vessel for sprinkling Holy Water in Catholic ceremonials). Compare that with this passage from the Apocalypse: ‘Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. A large quantity of incense was given him to offer with all the prayers of the saints on the golden altar that stood in front of the throne.’ (8:3-4). The resemblance is again striking. Transpose censer for aspersorium and one could almost be a paraphrase of the other. Hence Significant Vatican Anomaly No 6. What the above passage does, of course – is finish the whole account in a suitably consoling way. Maybe that was the intention. Maybe this ‘secret’ was conflated from different sources, to persuade us it is the genuine article?
Perhaps the most significant anomaly of all is the Vatican’s claim that the ‘Secret’ deals with past events. For this contradicts statements by both Sr Lucia and Cardinal Ratzinger, that it concerns events in the last days: – Significant Vatican Anomaly No 7. To sum up then: the Vatican’s account fails to ‘connect’ with the events it claims to foretell – and with what had been established about the Third Secret. In contrast, I plan to build on the known facts, those already established, not reject them. And my starting-point is to ask – does the message of Fatima warn of some kind of attack and if so by whom – and on whom? Is this in essence what it is about?
In the Second Secret, Our Lady revealed that unless Russia is consecrated to her Immaculate Heart, it would ‘provoke attacks on the Church… in a process which culminates in the Third Secret.. after which ‘my Immaculate Heart will triumph, the Holy Father will consecrate Russia’. Now clearly the message must have a logical consistency. What was revealed in the first part must follow on to the second and third parts and to the conclusion. Surely the very fact that the Pope must consecrate Russia in order to restore peace, implies that the Third Secret concerns an attack by Russia on the Catholic Church?
And since the consecration is a spiritual weapon, it implies some form of spiritual attack. Also the fact that all the Bishops must unite with the Pope in making this consecration, implies that the attack is universal in scope. Then surely there is significance in the words: ‘in the end, my Immaculate Heart will triumph…’? Sr Lucia has revealed that Our Lord once told her that ‘the consecration will be made late – Russia will already have spread its errors..’ This suggests a crisis, in which Russia’s attacks finally oblige the Pope and his Bishops to make the consecration. Remember too those words: ‘in Portugal the doctrines of the Faith will always be preserved’. As stated this implies that those doctrines will be undermined elsewhere. But since Russia is revealed as the protagonist in this attack, it also implies that the Third Secret is predisposed by the undermining of those same doctrines by that protagonist.. This brings us to another point. Our Lady foretold an attack on the Church, by Russia. But while the Church is a religious entity, Russia is a political entity. There is no common-ground between them, and so logically one cannot cause a crisis in the other. But a clue is provided by the warning of an attack on the doctrines of the Church. Clearly Russia could not make such an attack directly, but could do so through an intermediary whose ‘ecumenical credentials’ were acceptable to the Church.
Finally we ask – what is the primary cause of this attack? Who originates all attacks on the Church? Surely Satan, the enemy of man’s salvation? So Russia is the agency by which Satan seeks to destroy man, and the consecration is the facility by which Russia can be restored to Christ. And if Russia is attacking the Church, what options lie open to it? Logically there are only two means: overt or covert means. And surely the fact that Our Lady wanted the Secret revealed by 1960 as ‘it would be clearer’, and is yet unfulfilled – implies a long-term strategy of subversion? There is another implication of the long time-spans involved: it is not within the capability of a single generation to carry out this attack. It must continue from generation to generation. But then such a time-span is consistent with our point that it is Satan who is the ultimate origin of the attack. Also, the fact that the Secret was to ‘become clearer’ by 1960 implies that a train of events was already in progress. If we knew when that process started, we could follow those events as they move towards their conclusion.
In fulfillment of her promise, Our Lady appeared to Lucia on 13th June 1929 and announced ‘the moment has come when God asks the Pope, in union with all the Bishops of the world, to make the consecration of Russia to my Immaculate Heart, promising to save it by this means.’ What relevance has this to the Third Secret? Simply that it is the outcome of the Church’s failure to comply with this request. In other words ‘the moment’ the Church ignored it, was by implication the moment the Secret became imminent. Thus it is logical to suppose that something was taking place in June 1929 that would lead to the Third Secret. Logically too that event should be taking place in Russia, as it was the object of the consecration.