Cardinal Ratzinger: We Have Not Published the Whole Third Secret of Fatima

Let us hope for news from Fr Dollinger, one way or the other ,to clear up issues.

I hope I can show where Cardinal Bertone has been inconsistent.It would have been quicker and easier if you had asked me where Cardinal B had not been inconsistent, manipulative and downright [deleted]

Here is a list of events,...

1. In July 2006 Archbishop Loris Capovilla, the personal secretary to Pope John XXIII reveals to Solideo Paolini: • that there are two different envelopes and two different texts pertaining to the Third Secret: the “Capovilla envelope” and the “Bertone envelope”; • that the “Capovilla envelope” was kept in the papal apartment of John XXIII, in a desk called “Barbarigo,” located in the papal bedchamber; • that after Pope John read the text of the Secret inside that envelope in August 1959, he placed the text back into the envelope, resealed it, and instructed Capovilla to write on the outside “I give no judgment,” along with the names of all those Pope John had asked to read the Secret; • that Paul VI retrieved the “Capovilla envelope” from the same desk where Pope John left it (“Barbarigo”) and read its contents in 1963—two years before the date Bertone says Pope Paul read the Third Secret for the first time—and then resealed the envelope, as had John XXIII.

2. The “Bertone envelope,” on the other hand, was always kept in the Holy Office archives, and Pope Paul, according to Bertone’s account, read its contents in 1965—two years after Pope Paul had read the contents of the “Capovilla” envelope.

3. In the face of Capovilla’s explosive testimony proving the existence of another envelope and text of the Secret, Cardinal Bertone remains silent, even after Antonio Socci publishes that testimony to the world in November 2006 as part of his book The Fourth Secret of Fatima.

4. Bertone fails to deny or even to mention Capovilla’s testimony even when Giuseppe De Carli brings it to his attention while interviewing Bertone for Last Visionary of Fatima.

5. Last Visionary fails to address a single point Socci raises in Fourth Secret, including the testimony of Capovilla, even though Last Visionary is supposed to be a rebuttal of Fourth Secret, wherein Socci presents massive evidence of a cover-up of a text of the Secret.

6. During his television appearance of May 31, 2007 on the Italian television show Door to Door, a few weeks after Last Visionary is published, Bertone continues to avoid any discussion of Socci’s points, including Capovilla’s testimony, even though the very title of the show (“The Fourth Secret of Fatima Does Not Exist”) is a direct attack on the title of Socci’s book.

7. Although this installment of Door to Door is an attack on Socci’s book, Socci is not invited to participate in the show or even to submit questions to Bertone. Bertone evades, then blatantly misrepresents, Lucia’s telltale “etc”—the gateway to the Third Secret.

8. For the past seven years of an ongoing controversy, Bertone has refused to answer any questions about the words following Lucia’s “etc” in the momentous declaration of the Virgin: “In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.”, which Lucia recorded in her Fourth Memoir as part of the integral text of the Great Secret revealed by Virgin on July 13, 1917, and which Fatima scholars unanimously regarded as the opening words of the Third Secret.

9. Bertone, collaborating in Message of Fatima (2000), the Vatican commentary on the vision of “the Bishop dressed in white,” falsely describes the Virgin’s words ending in Lucia’s “etc” as merely “some annotations” by Lucia, when he knows the phrase is part of the integral text of the Great Secret as spoken by the Virgin herself and recorded in the Fourth Memoir.

10. To avoid the momentous words of the Virgin recorded in the Fourth Memoir, which they would have to explain to the faithful, Bertone and his collaborators use the less complete Third Memoir, offering no explanation for this strange decision other than the demonstrably false claim that the Virgin’s words in the Fourth Memoir are mere “annotations” by Lucia.

11. Yet, in another context, Bertone himself quotes from the Fourth Memoir precisely because it is more complete than the Third.

12. During the press conference of June 26, 2000, at which Message was published, Bertone states to the press: “It is difficult to say if it [the “etc”] refers to the second or the third part of the secret [i.e., the Great Secret of July 13, 1917]… it seems to me that it pertains to the second.” Hence Bertone does not deny that the “etc” could in fact be part of the Third Secret, which would mean that the Third Secret includes the Virgin’s spoken words.

13. Bertone refuses to address the “etc” issue, even though he himself makes a mocking reference to the issue in Last Visionary, only to avoid answering any questions about it.

14. Despite what he claims are ten hours of unrecorded interviews with Lucia concerning the Third Secret and the Message of Fatima in general, Bertone mysteriously fails to ask her whether there are any words of the Virgin following the famous “etc”, even though he knows this matter is at the very heart of the Third Secret controversy. In the alternative, Bertone does ask Lucia about what is contained within the “etc”, but he conceals her answer.

15. During the same ten hours of interviews Bertone mysteriously fails to ask Sister Lucia if the Virgin ever explained what Message calls the “difficult to decipher” vision of “the Bishop dressed in white,” and if so, whether there is a text of the Virgin’s explanation. In the alternative, Bertone does ask Lucia if the Virgin ever explained the vision, but conceals her answer.

16. During a radio broadcast on June 6, 2007, Bertone falsely states that the Virgin’s words in the Fourth Memoir end with ellipses (…), not with an “etc” added by Lucia to indicate further spoken words of the Virgin, even though Bertone certainly knows the mysterious “etc” has been at the heart of the Third Secret commentary for decades and throughout his entire tenure as a Vatican official, and could not possibly have mistaken the “etc” for an ellipsis.

17. During the same broadcast Bertone falsely suggests that the telltale words of the Virgin concerning the preservation of dogma in Portugal (but evidently not elsewhere) are not important because they are merely part of Lucia’s “memoir,” which he characterizes as “another writing,” when he knows that Lucia’s memoirs are the source texts of the integral Message of Fatima, and that he himself used the less complete Third Memoir to obtain the text of the Great Secret the Vatican published in 2000.

 

Bertone demolishes his own position on national television.


18. During the appearance on Door to Door in May of 2007, Bertone himself finally reveals—after seven years of failing to mention it—that Sister Lucia prepared two different sealed envelopes for transmission of the Third Secret, each bearing the notation “By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.”

19. Bertone himself thus verifies the “two envelopes, two texts” theory of Socci and the “Fatimists,” since it could hardly be the case that Lucia would use two sealed envelopes, with the “1960 order” on each, for one text.

20. Contrary to what he revealed on television, Bertone reports in Last Visionary that during his purported interview of Lucia on April 27, 2000, he asked her to identify only one sealed envelope as hers.

21. During the same appearance on Door to Door Bertone also reveals for the first time that the text of the vision of the bishop in white is not a letter to the Bishop of Fatima—which is how Lucia described the text of the Secret she had transmitted to the Bishop—but rather is written on four contiguous pages of her notebook, comprising a single sheet of folio paper.

22. Bertone himself thus confirms the contention of Socci and the “Fatimists” that, just as Sister Lucia herself revealed, the Secret was contained both in her notebooks and in her letter to the Bishop of Fatima.

23. Contrary to what he says on television on May 31, 2007, in Last Visionary, Bertone asserts that during the meeting of April 27, 2000 Lucia authenticated sheets (“fogli” in Italian) of paper pertaining to the Secret, not the single sheet he produced on Door to Door and which he described as “the folio (sheet of paper)… the only authentic folio (“l’unico foglio autentico”), the only folio in which is contained the Third Secret.”

24. During the appearance on Door to Door, Bertone makes it a point to display an envelope containing a 1967 translation of a text of the Secret (while failing to display the translation inside), but he does not display or even mention the 1959 translation of a text of the Secret, specially prepared for John XXIII, whose existence Archbishop Capovilla himself later reveals during a television broadcast staged by Bertone in September 2007.

25. Bertone inadvertently reveals during his appearance on Door to Door that the Third Secret involves “words” and an “interior locution” that Lucia committed indelibly to memory, when the vision of the bishop in white contains no words of the Virgin, but only Lucia’s own words describing the vision, and no interior locution

26. Bertone also finally admits during the Door to Door appearance that Cardinal Ottaviani affirmed “categorically” that there is a one-page text of the Secret comprising 25 lines, as opposed to the four-page text of 62 lines setting forth the vision of the bishop in white. Yet, in Last Visionary, Bertone claimed that he did not know what the Cardinal was talking about.

27. Curiously, Bertone says that he is “a little amazed” by Ottaviani’s testimony, instead of denying it outright and producing witnesses or documents that could readily disprove the testimony, if such witnesses and documents existed.

28. Bertone further declares to the TV audience that he does not find Ottaviani’s testimony about a one-page, 25-line text of the Secret “so convincing as to say that there exists a sheet of paper (foglio) of 25 lines…”, as if the matter were open to debate, when he would not speak this way if he were quite certain Ottaviani was wrong.

29. In a contrived attempt to explain away Cardinal Ottaviani’s testimony, which he cannot deny or refute, Bertone falsely suggests on Door to Door, and in a radio broadcast during the following week (June 6, 2007), that Ottaviani could have counted 25 lines on two pages of the four-page text of the vision—somehow thinking the two pages were one page!—when Bertone knows very well that the two pages he indicated on both occasions contain 32 lines of text and could not possibly have been mistaken for one page of 25 lines. Bertone fails to obtain a retraction from Capovilla, finally admitting to the existence of the never-produced “Capovilla envelope.”

30. When, at Bertone’s request, De Carli finally interviews Capovilla in August 2007, he fails to obtain a retraction of any element of Capovilla’s testimony to Paolini as recounted by Socci in Fourth Secret.

31. An earlier version of De Carli’s interview of Capovilla—also devoid of any retraction—is first published in a women’s magazine, indicating an attempt to “float” an unofficial “trial balloon” that will be passed off as a change of Capovilla’s testimony, when no change has in fact occurred.

32. According to De Carli’s transcript of his August 2007 interview of Capovilla, Paolini is not even mentioned during the interview, nor is Socci’s publication of Paolini’s account of what Capovilla told him.

33. The deliberate avoidance of any discussion of Paolini’s report of what Capovilla told him can only mean that Capovilla is not willing to deny or even modify what he said to Paolini.

34. During the interview with De Carli, Capovilla not only fails to deny or modify his testimony to Paolini, he confirms the existence of the “Capovilla envelope” containing the Third Secret, kept in the papal apartment in the desk called “Barbarigo” and bearing the words Capovilla had written on the outside at the direction of John XXIII.

35. Although his own witness now confirms its existence, Bertone fails to produce the “Capovilla” envelope or to give any explanation for its non-production, which he would certainly do if there were an innocent explanation.

36. Having failed to obtain a retraction of Capovilla’s testimony, De Carli, at Bertone’s behest, tries to supply (during the telecast Bertone stages in September 2007) the conclusion he could not extract from the witness: “I [De Carli!] conclude, therefore, there is not a Capovilla envelope to contrast to a Bertone envelope. The two envelopes are the same document.”

37. Yet, Bertone and De Carli both know that Capovilla himself said no such thing to De Carli, but on the contrary—according to De Carli’s own transcript of his interview of the Archbishop—Capovilla confirmed there is a “Capovilla envelope” bearing the Archbishop’s notations, which Bertone has never produced.

38. Bertone thus falsely represents to the public (through his agent De Carli) that there is no distinct “Capovilla envelope,” when his own evidence now demonstrates that it exists but has not been produced.

39. After seven years of having failed to reveal its existence, Bertone (through De Carli) now concedes that an envelope containing a text of the Third Secret and bearing Capovilla’s notations was kept in the papal apartment during the pontificates of John XXIII and Paul VI, even though, in Last Visionary, he scoffs at the claim that there was an envelope in the papal apartment as distinct from the Archives of the Holy Office. Bertone changes his story on the text in the papal apartment, thereby creating many new discrepancies in his account.

40. Forced by Capovilla’s testimony to concede that there was, after all, an envelope containing a text of the Third Secret in the papal apartment, not the archives, and that Paul VI read this text in 1963, not 1965 as Bertone had claimed, Bertone has De Carli ask Capovilla leading questions during the August 2007 interview which suggest—for the first time in seven years of controversy—that Paul VI read the same text twice, in 1963 and 1965, and that the text Pope Paul read in both years was merely the text of the vision the Vatican published in June 2000. This suggestion is “floated” during the Telepace broadcast, staged by Bertone in September 2007.

 

41. Bertone’s attempt to change his account to fit the evidence—evidence whose existence he had previously denied or appeared to deny—creates the following fatal discrepancies:

• If Paul VI read in 1965 the same text he read in 1963, then that text would be the one inside the “Capovilla envelope”, which Bertone has never produced; for as Capovilla told De Carli, after reading a text of the Secret in 1963, Paul VI placed it back in the “Capovilla envelope” and resealed the envelope.

• If there is nothing to hide, then Bertone would have produced the “Capovilla envelope” on television.

• The “official account” has never mentioned that Paul VI read a text of the Secret in 1963, even though that reading was a momentous historical event. • There would have been no reason for the official account not to mention this momentous historical event unless the text Pope Paul read in 1963 was (and is) being hidden.

• If Paul VI read in 1965 the same text he read 1963, the official account of the 1965 reading would have mentioned this also—unless, again, there is something to hide.

• As Bertone himself now reveals through Capovilla, Paul VI resealed the envelope containing the text he read in 1963, stating that he would “do as much as” Pope John had, meaning leave it to others to judge the text. Why, then, would Paul VI reopen the envelope he had resealed in 1963 in order to read the same text again in 1965?

• Even if Paul VI decided to reopen the envelope he had resealed in 1963 in order to give its contents a second reading in 1965, how is it that neither his diaries, nor the records of the members of his staff, nor any Vatican document whatsoever, reflect that the pope decided to revisit the same text he had previously decided to leave to others to judge?

• According to De Carli’s own transcript, Capovilla stated that after the 1963 reading of a text of the Secret by Paul VI “The envelope was resealed and I don’t know if it was spoken of further.” Thus Capovilla, contrary to what Bertone suggests (via the leading questions posed by De Carli), could not have known whether Pope Paul reopened the same envelope and read the same text again in 1965.


Bertone feigns ignorance of whether John Paul II read a text of the Secret in 1978.

42. In Last Visionary, Bertone states he is “convinced” and it his “opinion” that John Paul II did not read the Secret in 1978, within days of his election, even though papal spokesman Navarro-Valls so reported to the press—a report that indicates a text in the papal apartment, not yet disclosed.

43. Confronted with the testimony of Navarro-Valls, Bertone mysteriously declines simply to ask Navarro-Valls, the Pope himself (while he was still alive) or any number of other knowledgeable witnesses if the report is true, even though he had ample time to do so in connection with his written interview in Last Visionary. Alternatively, Bertone does verify the report and has hidden the fact that John Paul II did indeed read a text of the Secret in 1978, three years before the date given in Bertone’s account.

44. Despite repeated questioning even by De Carli, his handpicked interviewer, Bertone claims that John Paul II, the very “Pope of Fatima,” waited until the third year of his pontificate (1981) to read the Third Secret, when Paul VI read it within days of his election.

45. Pressed by De Carli for the third time during the interview in Last Visionary, Bertone incredibly suggests John Paul II was too busy “reevangelizing the world” to read the Third Secret in 1978.

46. Nos. 42-45 suggest Bertone’s determination not to admit that John Paul II read the Secret in 1978, when there would be no reason not to admit it unless there is something to hide concerning that earlier reading. Bertone defends a patently untenable “interpretation” of the vision of the bishop in white.

47. Bertone, following the lead of his predecessor, Cardinal Sodano, insists that the vision of a pope being executed by soldiers outside a half-ruined city signifies Pope John Paul II escaping death at the hands of a lone assassin in 1981—an “interpretation” even the Vaticanist Vittorio Messori categorically rejects as untenable during Bertone’s appearance on Door to Door.

48. Bertone fails to explain why, if that is all the vision signifies, it was kept under lock and key in the Vatican for nearly 20 years after the attempt.

49. Yet, Bertone asserts preposterously that the mere decision to publish the vision in 2000 “brings to an end a period of history marked by tragic human lust for power and evil…”—in which case, why was the decision not made sooner.

50. Bertone’s “interpretation” of the vision makes the 1981 assassination attempt the
very culmination of the Message of Fatima, even though the Pope recovered from
his wounds, resumed an active life of skiing, hiking and swimming for the next
twelve years, and died nearly twenty-five years after the attempt from the
complications of Parkinson’s disease.
51. In 2001, in the communiqué concerning his alleged interview of the seer in
November 2001, Bertone claims that Lucia “fully confirms” his interpretation of
the vision. But in May 2007, in Last Visionary, Bertone says “not in these terms”
when asked directly by his own chosen interviewer, De Carli, if Lucia had
accepted the interpretation.
52. All told, Bertone has given six different and inconsistent versions of Lucia’s
alleged statement to him that she “accepted” his “interpretation” of the vision.
53. Bertone asks the faithful to believe that the Virgin Mary had no words of
explanation concerning a vision he has “interpreted” in a manner plainly at odds
with what the vision depicts.
54. Bertone asks the faithful to believe that the Virgin left it to him and his
predecessor to explain the meaning of the vision to the Church and the world,
some 83 years after the Virgin confided it to the seers, and that Lucia herself
consented to be guided, not by the words of the Virgin delivered from Heaven,
but by two Vatican cardinals (Bertone and Sodano) who have no competence in
the matter whatsoever.
Bertone accuses Lucia of inventing the Virgin’s order
that the Secret was not to be revealed before 1960
55. Over the course of seven years Bertone claims repeatedly—in Message, in Last
Visionary, and during his television appearance on Door to Door—that Lucia
“confessed” to him during unrecorded interviews that the Virgin never told her
the Third Secret was not to be revealed until 1960, and that she (Lucia) arbitrarily
selected that year for the revelation of the Secret.
56. Throughout the seven years he makes this claim, however, Bertone fails to reveal
(until the appearance on Door to Door on May 31, 2007) that he has in his
possession not one, but two, envelopes on which Lucia had written: “By express
order of Our Lady, this envelope can only be opened in 1960 by the Cardinal
Patriarch of Lisbon or the Bishop of Leiria.”
57. Bertone has an obvious motive to obtain Lucia’s “confession” that she invented
the “express order” of the Virgin regarding 1960: the Virgin’s linkage of the
Secret to 1960 destroys his ridiculous “interpretation” linking the vision of the
bishop in white to the failed 1981 assassination attempt as the culminating Fatima
prophecy, and further points to a relation between the Secret and events around

 

The other 50 points are here...http://www.fatima.org/news/newsviews/fatima-for-today-a-response.pdf


Where would you like to start?

Here?


Dear Cardinal Bertone:

Who
— between
you and me —
isDeliberately
Lying?
Cardinal Bertone

Antonio Socci

 

I have been following the Fatima story since the early 90s.I do trust all those at the Fatima center .
Quite early on my family received the Fatima Crusader. And reading all the books by Chris F and Fr Kramer.
Obviously things became very interesting when Antonio Socci joined the debate.No longer was the official position just dealing with 'Rad Trads'
Socci being mainstream. His book the fourth secret was great.

Anyway , enough about me. Back to Bertone.

I think it is important to know if Cardinal Bertone is a man to be trusted.
Do you know if this claim is true or false Kevin?...

Socci says he does not have space to enumerate “all the gaffes” in Bertone’s book. But to give one more example: Bertone claims that Gorbachev, in his historic meeting with Pope John Paul II on December 1, 1989, “pronounced a mea culpa in front of the Pope.” Yet this fact “was explicitly denied by the Vatican Press Office on March 2, 1998.”

 

The conflicting statements, one following the other, of Vatican authorities (Bertone and Benedict) about whether the third secret has been completely expressed. This also gives evidence of how C. Bertone wanted to relegate Fatima to the past for his own reasons....some of which can be guessed at by his own most recent coverage in the news re: his own life style in "retirement" and from whom he received financing for his luxurious apartment overlooking even the Pope's own humble dwelling. God bless the Marian Movement of Priests for the sake of faithful Marian priests who wish to comply exactly with the orders coming to the faithful from heaven through the Blessed Mother of God and such requests being driven by the Divine Will of the Father:

http://radiomaria.us/tag/russia/

 

No.
I answered that I trust those at the Fatima center.
Obviously I am no scholar. But occasionally I do check Ferraras claims.

For example , when Chris pointed out that WAF changed the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary,..http://www.fatimaperspectives.com/ts/perspective749.asp. I checked it with a Portuguese friend and had it confirmed Chris was right . As I expected.

Back to Bertone?

 

Thanks for the links Kevin.
I had best take some time to read through them thoroughly.

 

I think Kevin, that evidence of a missing text ,containing the words of Our Lady is overwhelming. Just the first 9 minutes of this video should be enough to convince anyone.

 

What is most peculiar is that though Our Lady’s distinction is acknowledged by those who advance the “two texts” theory, there is a failure to understand the distinction at face value.[iii] The words of Our Lady are taken to mean that they support the thesis of a cover-up of a second text. In fact, a simple observation disproves this claim: if Our Lady told Sister she was not to write down what she understood of the vision’s meaning, then Sister did not write it down. Moreover, if Sister had not written it down, then there can be no cover-up over a document that does not exist.Kevin Symondshttp://www.catholicstand.com/fourth-secret-fatima/


I think Chris F answers that well here ...
“[T]he Mother of God would hardly have given a direction that Lucia must never reveal what had been given to her to understand the vision’s meaning. If that were the case, what would be the point of the vision — to confuse us and lead to endless debates over its interpretation? The suggestion is preposterous. The only reasonable conclusion is that Lucia was not to write down the ‘further revelations’ at that time but rather in a later separate and distinct text….”4http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr114/The%20Secret%20of%20Fatima.pdf

 

Well, after lurking on this thread for some time and taking in both sides, I think the crux of the matter is best summed up by that article Kevin wrote for Catholic Stand. Kevin writes:

"Chapter 13 of the 2013 biography indicates that indeed had the general theory been argued alone, it would have been correct. This is because the biography quotes from the private diary of Sr. Lúcia entitled O Meu Caminho (“My Way”) in which she records how she came to write down the third secret. It is in fact true that Sr. Lúcia wrote that there was more to the third secret than what she wrote down in 1944 and communicated to the competent ecclesiastical authority.

Where it seems an oversight has been made though is a neglecting of something that Our Lady said to Sr. Lúcia. According to Sister’s diary, Our Lady appeared to her and told Sister that she was to write down what her superiors commanded of her, but not what she is given to understand of its meaning. This is understood to mean that Our Lady made a distinction between what Sister saw in the vision on July 13, 1917 and how she was made to understand said vision.

What is most peculiar is that though Our Lady’s distinction is acknowledged by those who advance the “two texts” theory, there is a failure to understand the distinction at face value.[iii] The words of Our Lady are taken to mean that they support the thesis of a cover-up of a second text. In fact, a simple observation disproves this claim: if Our Lady told Sister she was not to write down what she understood of the vision’s meaning, then Sister did not write it down. Moreover, if Sister had not written it down, then there can be no cover-up over a document that does not exist.

The above is, of course, subject to whether or not Sister later wrote her understanding down and with Our Lady’s permission. The burden of proof then is for someone to prove beyond doubt that in fact Sister wrote down her understanding at some later point in time. If such is proven, I will be more than happy to admit my observation is incorrect. Until such a time though, the status quaestionis (state of the question) is going to revolve around this point.

I suspect that people might be tempted to respond to the above observation by appealing to the fact that there was an attempt to contact the Sisters in Coimbra but no answer was given. One must consider though that to argue for the “two texts” theory after the publication of this new biography of Sr. Lúcia puts one in a quandary.

If someone were to continue advancing the “two texts” theory, then one simultaneously argues that the Sisters are deliberately misleading the public. The Sisters would be, in fact, publishing information that leads the public one way, all the while knowing that it is not true. This is defamation of untold proportions towards cloistered nuns and ought not to be tolerated, much less countenanced." http://www.catholicstand.com/fourth-secret-fatima/

I have to say that I think Kevin's comments pretty much summarize how I feel on the topic.

 

Hi Mr. Symonds, Thank you for your insights about Fatima. It seems that the heart of the question in this discussion about the Third Secret vision as distinct from its significado ("that which has been given to you to understand its meaning"), is whether Our Lady is referring by these words to a part of the Secret, or to a later revelation or grace given just to Sister Lucy. Do we have any indications or reasons supporting one interpretation over the other?

 

I don't really want to track down your answer there. Maybe you could answer the question succinctly here, or copy and paste your answer.

 

This forum is obviously blessed with a very high caliber of members. I do not have much to contribute at their level of research and intellect but will watch with interest as the debates develope. Thank you for this resource.

 

Thank you for my trophy Sorrowful Heart. This is fun.

 

Great, thanks Kevin.

 

I am going to copy here the text taken from Fatima Crusader to which I think you are referring:

Perhaps it is precisely due to that visit by the Pope (Benedict in Fatima in 2010) that this book (of the Sisters) was released, from which another precious little piece of the truth filters out. The volume in fact draws from the letters of Sister Lucy and from the unpublished diary “My Way”. Impressive, among things previously unpublished, is the account of how Sister Lucy overcame the terror that (initially) prevented her from writing down the Third Secret.

The Unpublished Account
At around 4 p.m. on January 3, 1944, in the chapel of the convent, before the Tabernacle, Lucia asked Jesus to make known His will: “I then felt a friendly hand, maternal and affectionate, touch my shoulder.” And the Mother of God said to her: “Be at peace, and write what I have commanded you, but not, however, that which has been given to you to understand its meaning,” intending to allude to the meaning of the vision which the Virgin herself had revealed.

Immediately afterward, said Sister Lucia, “I felt my spirit inundated by a mystery of light that is God and in Him I saw and heard: the point of a lance like a flame that is detached, touches the axis of the earth, and it trembles: mountains, cities, towns and villages with their inhabitants are buried. The sea, the rivers, the clouds, exceed their boundaries, inundating and dragging with them, in a vortex, houses and people in a number that cannot be counted. It is the purification of the world from the sin in which it is immersed. Hatred, ambition, provoke the destructive war. After I felt my racing heart, in my spirit a soft voice said: ‘In time, one faith, one baptism, one Church, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic. In eternity, Heaven!’ This word ‘Heaven’ filled my heart with peace and happiness in such a way that, almost without being aware of it, I kept repeating to myself for a long time: Heaven, Heaven.”

​

I have marked in red the words of Sister Lucia. What Sister Lucia has written, I find quite 'explosive'. Surely this conclusively shows there was much more to the third secret than the Vatican published. But my question to Kevin is, when Our Lady says to Lucia to only write down "what I have commanded you", surely it is a step too far to say that the rest of the sentence was a command not, ever, to write down the meaning. Surely the sentence merely tells Lucia what to write down on that day (January 3, 1944)?

 

I wanted to find a translation of the relevant part of the newly published book and the one I printed above is all I could find. I realise you were questioning the translation of one sentence from the above:

Be at peace, and write what I have commanded you, but not, however, that which has been given to you to understand its meaning,

your preferred translation is (I think)

Be at peace and write what they command you, not, however, what is given to you to understand of its significance.

I see the difference but not, really, the significance. My point remains that I don't think that Our Lady is telling Lucia never to write down the explanation of the secret.

 

I agree. I'm not willing to throw Ferara and his translation under the bus because of such a paltry difference of opinion regarding translation. It's just not enough to hang this argument on, let alone accuse him of "mistranslation."

 

Just to spice up and expand the debate on 'if the third secret of Fatima has been released in full.'

I read a certain messenger was told the whole third secret of Fatima in a message at the end of May 2016. Of course the contents are not published. I am one of those who choose to believe, we have already been told the whole secret. And we have Akita messages which it is said are the same as the Fatima message.