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

In your writings I seem to get the feeling you are actually skeptical there are two written texts connected with the Third Secret. If that is the case, how do you explain the now somewhat famous response, 'precisely so', of the late Archbishop Capovilla to journalist Solideo Paolin's question about two texts. Maybe I'm mistaken and you remain open to the existence of a second text?

 

I suppose the other significant 'evidence' of another text stems from the testimony of Bishop Venancio who apparently handled the envelope holding the secret. Is the report of his descriptions of the envelope, outside and held up to the light, doubtful in your view? I'm not trying to argue one way or the other, I'm just interested in your view.

With regard to Paolini, I agree we cannot be certain about what he reports but he seems quite a good witness. But I suppose he may have misunderstood the Archbishop's response.

 

Hi Kevin,
How would you explain some of the things Cardinal Ratzinger has said over the years which seem to show he knows more about the interpretation than is shown in the published text?

 

Thank you very much Kevin; although I dont know enough french. Would you accept that we have not been told everything about Fatima? I am thinking especially of the letter given to John Paul II to Sr Lucia on May 13 2000, and the many writings that were never revealed. I think Ratzinger said as much when her cell was sealed after her death in 2005. Also what do you make of the fact that in the letter from May 13 1982, Lucia said we were moving towards the final consummation of the secret with great strides; that obviously is not consistent with the interpretation given By Cardinal Sodano.
Thanks in advance!

 

I have just discovered this video on Fr. Gruner...very interesting. Very good...

 

I hope you have not written off Paolini. He has put forward a lot.
If you do not believe his word , that is your right.

But we have more than his word . Didnt Paolini record Capovilla?The Italian newspaper Il Giornale reported, “To the journalists there, Socci

played a recording with the voice of Capovilla who on June 21, 2007 said, ‘There was something else, apart from the four pages, an attachment, yes.’ Words that would strengthen the theory of the existence of a second sheet of paper with the interpretation of the Secret.​

”http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr87/cr87pg16.asp







​

 

Kevin , We will all assume you will look into all discrepancies as thoroughly as you looked into the Fr Dollinger ' differing versions'.

'Hello Mac! I hope that you are doing well! Please allow me to summarize, in brevis, what I stated in my essay.
1) There are differing versions of Fr. Dollinger's story. That there is a lack of unity deeply affects the credibility of the claim.'


Have you looked at Paolinis points , regardless of Capovilla?



You are aware of all discrepancies Kevin?
My Meetings with Archbishop Capovilla and the Socci-Cardinal Bertone Strugglehttp://www.fatimapeaceconferences.com/solideo_paolini_2007_en.asp

 

33 REASONS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER TEXT PERTAINING TO THE THIRD SECRET OF FATIMA
1. Sister Lucia revealed that a text of the Secret is in the form of a letter to the Bishop of Fatima, but the vision is not a letter.
2. Those who have read the Secret have revealed that it speaks of a coming state of apostasy in the Church, but the vision says nothing of this.
3. Our Lady clearly had more to say following the momentous “etc,” which clearly begins another, and thus the third, part of the Great Secret, but the vision contains not a word from Her.
4. Our Lady explains everything in the vision contained in the first part of the Great Secret, but we are asked to believe that there is absolutely no explanation from Her concerning the vision in the third part—i.e., the Third Secret.
5. Father Schweigl revealed that the Third Secret has two parts: one concerning the Pope, and the other “a logical continuation of the words ‘In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved, etc,” but the vision does not contain that logical continuation of the Virgin’s words.
6. The Vatican-initiated press release from 1960, announcing suppression of the Secret, describes the suppressed text as “the letter” that “will never be opened,” containing “the words which Our Lady confided as a secret to the three little shepherds…”, but the vision is not a letter and contains no words confided by the Virgin as a secret.
7. Cardinal Ottaviani, who read and had custody of the Secret, revealed that it involved a “sheet of paper” bearing 25 lines of text recording “what Our Lady told her [Lucia] to tell the Holy Father…”, but the vision spans 62 lines, and in it the Virgin does not tell Sister Lucy anything at all.
8. Cardinal Bertone has admitted that Ottaviani stated “categorically a text of 25 lines,” and he was unable to refute that testimony, offering only a patently incredible “attempt” to explain that “maybe [!]” Ottaviani was “mistaken.”
9. A text of the Secret was kept in the papal apartment during the pontificates of Pius XII, John XXIII and Paul VI, and at least at the beginning of the pontificate of John Paul II, even though Bertone’s “official account” speaks only of a text in the Holy Office archives.

 

10. John XXIII read a text of the Secret that was so difficult it required an Italian translation of the Portuguese, but also read another text, the following year, that he could understand perfectly without a translation.
11. The text of the vision contains no particularly difficult Portuguese expressions.
12. There are two different Italian translations of the Secret: the one prepared for John XXIII, and the one prepared in 1967, neither of which we have been allowed to see.
13. Three different Popes (John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul II) read texts of the Secret on two different dates—years apart—during their respective pontificates, but all three of these second readings are mysteriously omitted from Bertone’s “official account.”
14. When pressed to explain what text of the Secret John Paul II reportedly read in 1978, given that Bertone claims John Paul did not read the Secret until 1981, Bertone was evasive and finally said merely that “in my opinion” John Paul did not read a text in 1978, when it would have been a simple matter to ascertain this from innumerable sources at his disposal, including the Pope himself—an omission clearly suggesting that Bertone knew the report was true.
15. Archbishop Capovilla, personal secretary to John XXIII, confirmed that the text of the Secret kept in the papal apartment was contained in the “Capovilla envelope” on which he wrote his name, the names of all who had read its contents, and the judgment of John XXIII that he would “leave it to others to decide” what to do about the text.
16. On June 27, 1963, two years before the “official account” claims he read the Secret, Pope Paul VI opened the Capovilla envelope, which was retrieved from John XXIII’s Babarigo desk, read its contents, inquired of Capovilla about the notations on the outside, resealed the envelope, and said nothing further about it.
17. When asked by Solideo Paolini in 2006 whether this means there are two different envelopes and two different texts of the Third Secret—the “Bertone envelope” and the “Capovilla envelope”—Capovilla admitted to Paolini: “Exactly so!”
18. Capovilla has never retracted his statement to Paolini, even though he has had every opportunity to do so.
19. Bertone has not even asked Capovilla to deny what he said to Paolini, but rather has conspicuously avoided even mentioning Paolini.
20. Bertone has failed and refused to produce the reopened and resealed Capovilla envelope, even though he has finally admitted that it exists.

 

21. Yet Bertone, under mounting public pressure, finally revealed on the television show Porta a Porta that there are actually two identical sealed envelopes of Lucia’s, bearing the “express order of Our Lady” that the contents were not to be revealed until 1960, even though he had been representing for seven years that there is only one envelope, while falsely claiming that Lucia “confessed” she had never received any order from the Virgin linking the Secret to 1960 and forbidding its disclosure until then.
22. Bertone also revealed on Porta a Porta a third envelope of Lucia’s, unsealed and addressed to Bishop da Silva, which, together with the Bishop’s outer envelope, would make a total of four envelopes we are supposed to believe were all created for only one text of the Secret.
23. Yet, when he held up Bishop da Silva’s outer envelope to a bright light, auxiliary Bishop Venâncio saw only one envelope inside, and took exact measurements of both the envelope and the single sheet of paper within it, which contained 20-25 lines of text, just as Cardinal Ottaviani testified.
24. The measurements of the envelope and the sheet of paper taken by Bishop Venâncio are entirely different from the measurements of the envelope and the sheet of paper revealed by Bertone on Porta a Porta.
25. Bertone himself revealed, only weeks before his appearance on Porta a Porta, in his book Last Visionary of Fatima, that in April 2000 Sister Lucia “authenticated” sheets of paper pertaining to the Secret, even though on Porta a Porta Bertone revealed only one sheet, that containing the text of the vision.
26. In Last Visionary Bertone also revealed that there was also an outer envelope, not Lucia’s, bearing the note “Third Part of the Secret,” which likewise has never been produced.
27. Confronted with mounting evidence of a cover-up, Bertone adopted the line of referring repeatedly to an “authentic” text of the Secret, an “authentic” envelope, and the “only folio that exists in the Holy Office archives,” when he knows full well that there was a text and envelope in the papal apartment, thus suggesting (as Socci notes) that he deems a second text of the Secret “inauthentic.”
28. Called as a witness by Bertone, Bishop Seraphim of Fatima, who purportedly witnessed Lucia’s authentication of the text of the vision in April 2000, employed the even more nuanced declaration that “the Secret of Fatima has been revealed in an authentic and integral way,” declining to affirm simply that the Third Secret of Fatima had been revealed entirely and that nothing had been withheld.
29. In an audiotape of a subsequent meeting with Solideo Paolini, Archbishop Capovilla further revealed that there is an “attachment” to the text of the vision, which has never been produced

 

30. Bertone has never denied the existence of this “attachment,” even though the prominent Italian newspaper Il Giornale publicized its existence and declared that it “would confirm the thesis of the existence of a second sheet with the interpretation of the Secret.”
31. Bertone has failed and refused to ask Sister Lucia or Archbishop Capovilla a single question that would penetrate to the heart of any of these matters, which he knows to be in controversy, and in particular has avoided like the plague any questions about the “etc,” the text in the papal apartment, the testimony of Solideo Paolini concerning the admissions by Archbishop Capovilla, the never-produced Capovilla envelope, and the mysterious sudden appearance of multiple envelopes never mentioned before.
32. To this day, the Vatican has issued no official denial of the allegations in Socci’s book, even though Socci literally accuses Bertone of covering up the very words of the Mother of God.
33. On the contrary, Pope Benedict XVI sent Socci a note “concerning my book, thanking me for ‘the sentiments which have suggested it,’” without the slightest indication that the book is in error.

 

Thank you Mac for all these very good and interesting facts regarding the existence of a second envelope which contains the remainder of the third secret of Fatima!

When pondering all the above one has to wonder why Sr Lucia did not place the entire third secret in one envelop.

However, I know Sr Lucia went through a torture of mind, heart and soul when asked by her Bishop to write the third secret down. I think that she must have written the vision down first and placed this in an envelope, and then after much prayer and discernment also wrote the explanation of the vision which was given by Our Lady, but then placed this in a seperate envelope.

Two points I think we should consider;

1]God was definately leading Sr Lucia; so this "two envelope thing" is ultimately a dilemma given to us from God.

2] The reasons Lucia decided to keep the two parts of the third secret in seperate envelops and not put them in the same envelope? may have been because she felt it should be up to the Church hierarchy, to reveal what and when?

Little did she know of the consequences that would ensue due to the "2 envelopes"!!

But this whole kettle of fish which has become a nightmare, may very well have been a test by God for the Church hierarchy! [sort of like seperating the sheep from the goats, in hierarchy regard].

Our Blessed Mother subsequently appeared at Akita [and I believe at Garabandal], to give us even more dire warnings stating that...... Bishop will oppose Bishop and Cardinal oppose Cardinal, etc

So will we ever really see and know the full third secret of Fatima?
In my opinion.......no.

Because I think, this unrevealing of the complete Third secret of Fatima, is part of the apostasy!

And just like the 11 other Apostles respected Judas and did not even think to question Judas's kiss on Our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane, until well after Our Lords passion; so too our good and holy Priests, Bishops and Cardinals will not be able to question the real motives of other Priests, Bishops and Cardinals [or their reasons for opposing the revealing of the entire Third secret] until after the passion of Christs Body; 'the Holy Catholic Church'.

 

Vatican: ‘Publication of Third Secret of Fatima is Complete’ (But is it completely published?)

Pat Archbold

For a 100-year-old apparition of the Virgin Mary that we were assured was exclusively a 20th century history lesson, it sure has been in the news lately.

To catch up – first, we had Alice Von Hildebrand’s recollections at OnePeterFive about the Third Secret of Fatima having to do with an apostasy that would begin at the top.

A week later we had the confirmation of the decade-old assertion by Fr. Ingo Dollinger—a personal friend of Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict XVI—that subsequent to the latter’s description of the Third Secret as regarding a crisis of faith, a bad council, and a bad Mass (and the vastly different account of it out of the Vatican in the year 2000), the then-Cardinal Ratzinger has claimed that there was indeed more to the secret than what was published.
And again, as interesting as that development is, it was simply the re-confirmation of a decade-old assertion made by Fr. Dollinger that had been previously published by Fr. Gruner and others.

But then the truly shocking thing happened: The Vatican Press Office issued a strongly worded denial of that which it had ignored for a decade—a denial purportedly from Pope Benedict himself, seemingly his first public reaction to anything since his resignation.

Now, if the intent of the Vatican Press Office was to put the whole Third Secret of Fatima controversy to rest, they failed miserably. For those who have been following claims made by the “Fatimists” of a cover-up, this truly bizarre Vatican denial only serves to pour gasoline on the fire.

But before I get to breaking down the Vatican denial, let’s ponder how bizarre it is that the Vatican would respond to the OnePeterFive story now, after it had been known, published, and repeatedly referenced by Fatimists for almost a decade. Granted, it is possible that the OnePeterFive development gave the story fresh legs, but Antonio Socci and Chris Ferrara have published and sold countless books on the intrigue surrounding the Fatima Secret—and yet the Vatican pretended to have hardly noticed, never refuting or addressing the mountain of evidence of the existence of missing text to the Fatima secret. For some reason, this suddenly gets an immediate and public response from the Vatican now? Why? Curiouser and curiouser, as another Alice once said. I have my theories on that, but first the Vatican response.

In order to properly understand the Vatican response from the point of view of an informed Fatimist, one must understand what most Fatimists have been contending all along. The mainstream Catholic media often dismisses the Fatimists by insisting that, in order to believe them, you must be willing to call multiple popes liars. This simply is not true. What most Fatimists allege is that the Vatican is playing some sort of mental reservation game.

In short, the Fatimists have long claimed that there exists an additional text written by Sr. Lucia around the same time as the vision with which we are all familiar. This additional text contains the words of Our Lady explaining the vision and likely containing a warning about massive threats to the faith that would come from within the Church. Prior to the year 2000, the context and likely contents of the actual Third Secret were attested to by so many people in the know that it is impossible to simply discount it. The Fatimists allege that, for some reason, whether due to the alarming content or its indictment of the changes in the Church during and following the Second Vatican Council, that popes since John XXIII have questioned the validity of certain aspects of this Secret’s text. They found it so alarming, so dangerous, or so uncomfortable, that they questioned whether it had not been tainted somehow, perhaps even by Sr. Lucia herself. Thus, having refused to accept the authenticity and veracity of this text, they have mentally excluded it as a legitimate part of the Third Secret.

This distinction is important to understand, as it makes sense of many otherwise incongruous and strangely precise statements made by prelates since 2000 regarding the Secret and ominous developments in the Church. Even though they might know that an additional text written by Sr. Lucia exists, they use this mental reservation to exclude it from the “legitimate” Third Secret. In their minds, they are not lying, but at the same time, they want to make sure to never confirm that there is more to the Third Secret, because such confirmation would cause a clamor for its release that would be difficult to impossible to resist.

With that understanding, we can easily see why this strange denial of the Fr. Dollinger assertion will simply add fuel to the fire.

Several articles have appeared recently, including declarations attributed to Professor Ingo Dollinger according to which Cardinal Ratzinger, after the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima (which took place in June 2000), had confided to him that the publication was not complete.

In this regard, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.

On its face, this denial is meant to convince the reader of one thing: It is all a lie; Pope Benedict never even spoke to Fr. Dollinger about Fatima.

Except that is not what the statement actually says. The first paragraph lays out a very precise scenario; specifically, that of Pope Benedict’s post-2000 comment that the publication was not complete. But the next paragraph begins with a critical precision: “In this regard.” That precision means that the statement is not specifically denying that Pope Benedict had spoken to Fr. Dollinger about Fatima, simply that he did not tell Fr. Dollinger that the “publication was not complete.”

This is interesting because it in no way denies Fr. Dollinger’s assertion that prior to 2000, Cardinal Ratzinger conversed with Fr. Dollinger about the Third Secret and characterized it in a manner vastly different from what was released in 2000. This is a critical piece of what Fr. Dollinger alleges, and it is in no way denied in this statement. The only thing that is denied is that Cardinal Ratzinger said: “the publication is not complete.”

Now this phrase, “publication is complete” is a critical one, which is why I took the time to explain the bit about mental reservation. If you understand that they have used mental reservation to exclude this additional text from the Third Secret, it is not a lie to say the publication of the Third Secret is complete, since they may or may not “believe” the additional text is an authentic piece of the Third Secret. Further, we already know that the “publication is complete”. The Vatican made that clear back in 2000. In fact, that is precisely the problem, according to the Fatimists. The publication is complete even though the words of the Virgin are nowhere to be found. The phrase, “The publication is complete”, is meaningless if you understand the mental reservation game.

As for the words attributed to Pope Benedict in the Vatican Press Office denial — that Fr. Dollinger’s remarks “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue,” — we must admit that this may be true, even if the vehemence of the rebuke is not at all like Ratzinger and seems oddly terse for the rebuttal of an old friend.

What is more, it is hard not to notice that we are only provided these terse pull-quotes from Benedict with absolutely no context or understanding of the actual questions posed to Pope Benedict. This is reminiscent of the pull-quotes attributed to Sr. Lucia by Cardinal Bertone in support of the 2000 secret release, those 3 lines pulled from a 4-hour interview with an old woman. Honestly, without the proper context, these pull-quotes are of very little value in determining the truth of the matter, finding their only value in the perception of the general public.

Given the seriousness of the matter—something so serious, in fact, that the Vatican not only responded, but pulled Pope Benedict out for comment for the first time in 3+ years—this is a very unserious response. If the Vatican is truly concerned with putting this matter to rest, allow Chris Ferrara and Antonio Socci extended interview time with Pope Benedict and Cardinal Bertone to frame the questions properly and to record for all the complete and unabridged answers.

Perhaps the Fr. Dollinger story is not true in all its detail and the Vatican felt comfortable coming out with this denial in order to bolster the claim and public perception that the entirety of the Third Secret is released. Still, I have followed this Fatima story very closely, and, after reading this latest Vatican denial, I cannot help but be more convinced than ever that there is more to the story. ■

http://remnantnewspaper.com/web/ind...ma-is-complete-but-is-it-completely-published

 

Kevin: I have a couple of questions.......

As far back as 1960, I recall one of our teaching nuns telling us about Fatima and the five Saturdays devotion. She also told us that Our Lady said the faith would always be preserved in Portugal. Was that part of the published secrets or was it never a secret? I'm too lazy to go looking for the text of the secrets, so I'm hoping you will know off the top of your head.

Is it possible that Sr. Lucia gave to her Bishop a written interpretation of the third secret as explained to her by Our Lady, and that could be what is in the second envelope or even what people claim to be the unrevealed part of the secret? Perhaps that part of the interpretation was meant for the Pope's eyes only? I can understand why the Church wouldn't want it revealed if it referred to an apostasy within the hierarchy or a bad Council because it would leave every Pope, Cardinal and Council open to the charge of being the one referred to in the secret which would be an impossible situation for the hierarchy. With all the confusion about Amoris Laetitia and the Vatican actually taking the trouble to issue a statement from the Pope Emeritus at this time, I have wondered whether the recent Synod could qualify as a bad Council.

I hope my questions make sense. I had never questioned the consecration of Russia or that the three secrets had been fully disclosed until very recently but now I'm starting to have doubts.

 

Saw this on Spirit Daily today. Frankly it answers nothing about the completeness of the third secret and avoids the given interpretation that people are still awaiting. Seems to throw out a distraction of a denial of a "fourth" secret which hadn't even entered into this particular conversation. Even this seems a bit too contrived and therefore "fishy"!

Here is Benedict's letter in its entirety; an article about it is available here.

Benedictus XVI, Papa Emeritus

Vatican City, 15. 3. 2016

Sir,

In response to your very kind letter of February 22, I can tell you that a fourth secret of Fatima does not exist. The published text is full (?) and there is nothing else.

When I said that this secret is not just about the past, I wanted to clarify and explain simply the genre of such words, we can never reduce only on a specific point. It�s an ongoing reality that the Church and the Pope are threatened by evil forces.

Even if we can interpret the vision of a specific event, you can still see in it also a reference to ever new threats and dangers that continue. Above all it is important that the call to prayer, which supports and assists the Pope and the Church, remain present after this time.

I hope I have cleared your request and stay with my greetings and my blessing.

Yours, Benedictus XVI

Doesn't make much sense nor is it very clear in its meaning. And the world isn't threatened by evil forces too? Again, doubtful about its true origins.

 

Well the Vatican haven't been honest with us re abuses and their level of mental reservation. That includes the ex pope as well. I mean they never put their hands up and openly admit it from the start until it had forced their hand.

Their credibility was damaged. Could i trust them again? No after all that had happened.

I am not sure about the ' bad council' but ' bad mass ' sounded right. These are just my personal views.

I came across latin mass when someone asked me to go to latin priest's mass . I was stupified and amazed at the beauty of that mass. Found Latin mass was stronger than the present mass although it was in some ways, effective when i was battling with spirits from new age. (got involved unwittingly which i learnt my lesson).

Although Latin mass doesn't suit some communities such as deaf community, which was a shame.

Finally Fatima secrets is a matter of private revelation which isn't mandatory nor compulsory , up to you to believe it or not. It also applies to all approved apparitions as well.

 

I doubt whether Fatima would have been referring to the Synod process.

I'm not a student of Garabandal but I recall some conjecture that a statement there could apply though.

 

Sounds a wonderful plan.
No chance it will happen sadly.
Hard questions being asked of those capable of giving answers, has never been high on the list with those in power .

 

Sorry Kevin.
I am not sure of your position on all the issues.
You do not believe Fr Dollinger is being truthful, and you suspect Paolini is lying,
and you do not believe The Blessed Virgin Mary wanted us to know an explanation to the vision?

Question 1.
Do you support the entire Official position?

 

I had the same feeling too. This decent into further ambiguous application of such an important approved series of apparitions and prophecies is not helpful at all........Especially in the context of Pope Benedict's explicit public reference to his own hope that fulfillment of the Triumph of the Immaculate Heart will be realized upon the 100th anniversary in May 2017.....