The Third Secret Cover-up
by Christopher A. Ferrara
This part of Mr. Ferrara's speech explores and analyzes the continuing deceptive public declarations of Cardinal Bertone regarding the Third Secret. Mr. Ferrara demonstrates again and again that Cardinal Bertone is deliberately hiding part of the Third Secret of Fatima. While Cardinal Bertone does it with great personal charm on TV, upon analyzing his words it is clear that Cardinal Bertone acknowledges de facto that there's more to the Third Secret than what he insists is all there is. This is an edited transcript of most of Mr. Ferrara's talk given on August 21, 2007 at the Fatima: Only Way to World Peace Conference in Botucatu, Brazil.
We come now to the year 2000 when the Vatican published this vision of the Third Secret. Here we have to focus on the role of then Archbishop Bertone who is now Cardinal Bertone, the Vatican Secretary of State. Back then he was the Secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
In 2000 the Vatican was confronted by the following facts: There was this “etc.” that everyone knew was the beginning of the Third Secret. There were words of the Virgin. The Vatican itself referred to words of the Virgin in 1960. Everyone knew from the time of Pius XII in 1931 all the way to 2000 that these words must refer to a crisis of faith. And even apocalyptic events for the world at large. In 2000, largely because of the pressure brought to bear by Father Gruner’s apostolate and millions of faithful around the world, the Vatican finally published the vision of the bishop dressed in white. But confronted with these facts that I have just mentioned, the Vatican published nothing that contains a reference to those facts. The vision says nothing about what follows the “etc.”. The vision contains no words of the Virgin. The vision says nothing about a crisis of faith in the Church. In fact, the vision says nothing at all by way of words from the Virgin. The Virgin is silent.
That Can’t Be All
Now faithful around the world immediately said: “This can’t be all there is to the Third Secret.” Mother Angelica, within about a year of the publication of the vision, said on television — live television before millions of people, and I’m quoting — “I happen to be one of those people who thinks we didn’t get the whole thing”. This is a very loyal nun — totally loyal to the Pope, totally loyal to the Vatican. And yet she casually says on national television that we didn’t get the whole thing. Because millions of people believed, as she believes, that this vision cannot possibly be the entirety of the Third Secret.
Our Lady Has Nothing to Say?
First of all, how could the Virgin have left us a vision so ambiguous that Archbishop Bertone and Cardinal Sodano had to interpret it for us? It’s inconceivable because, as you know, when the seers saw hell Our Lady immediately explained to them what they had seen although it was obvious what they had seen. They had seen the souls burning and being tossed about in hell like coals flying about, as Sister Lucy said. And yet immediately the Virgin told them: “You have seen hell where the souls of poor sinners go.” She told them what they had just seen.
And yet we were asked to believe in 2000 that the Virgin had absolutely nothing to say about how a Pope comes to be executed by a band of soldiers outside a blasted city full of bodies! Nothing to say about that! We’re supposed to figure that out for ourselves. Nobody really believed that. Something clearly was missing.
Sodano’s Personal Interpretation
But the Vatican put out an “official” interpretation called The Message of Fatima. It’s a booklet published in 2000 that goes along with the text of the vision. In this booklet, apparently, the Vatican decided that it was going to follow an interpretation of the vision prescribed not by the Pope, not even by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but by the Vatican Secretary of State at the time, Cardinal Sodano.
The Message of Fatima booklet states four different times that it is going to follow the interpretation of Cardinal Sodano. And Cardinal Sodano claims in this booklet that the vision of the bishop dressed in white is all about the persecution of the Church in the 20th Century and that it culminates in the 1981 assassination attempt of John Paul II.
Now let’s think about that for a moment. Put aside the assassination attempt and consider this: If the vision is all about events in the 20th Century, World War II, the persecution of the Church by Communism and Nazism, then what the Cardinal is claiming is that the Second Secret is the same as the Third Secret and the Third Secret is the same as the Second Secret. They both talk about the same things and so there really is no Third Secret.
Now if there really is no Third Secret — if the Third Secret according to Cardinal Sodano is really just a vision depicting the second Secret — then why was Sister Lucy unable to write it down? And why didn’t she provide the vision immediately instead of waiting until 1944? And if the second Secret and the Third Secret are the same, why was there ever any talk of a Third Secret of Fatima?
Furthermore, if the vision relates to events that had already happened before 2000, why had the Vatican kept it secret since 1960? What was so explosive about this document that it couldn’t be revealed if, as the Cardinal claimed in 2000, it was about events that had already happened? It simply doesn’t make any sense.
Third Secret Vision
Can't Be John Paul II
Now let’s look at the claim that the vision relates to the assassination attempt. Nobody believes that for a moment. It’s absurd because the Cardinal is claiming that a vision of a Pope being executed by a band of soldiers who fire bullets and arrows at him is a depiction of John Paul II not being killed in 1981 by a single assassin — who was captured and brought to justice!
It has to be said that the Pope, thank God, recovered from his wounds and went on to live a very active life. He returned to the ski slopes. He used his swimming pool at Castelgandolfo. He did not die for twenty-five years after 1981. So, for the Cardinal to say that the fallen Pope in the vision who dies is the Pope who returns to the ski slopes and lives another twenty-five years is ludicrous. No one believed it. Not even the secular press believed it.
Attempted to Bury Fatima
Yet in the Vatican’s Message of Fatima booklet again and again we are told that the vision of the bishop dressed in white and the whole Message of Fatima — and this is the key phrase used over and over again — “belongs to the past.” They wanted us all to think in the year 2000 that the Message of Fatima is over and done with. It’s all in the past: Russia has been consecrated, the Pope has escaped death and Fatima is finished. Everybody, go back to sleep now. We can forget about Fatima.
Meanwhile, of course, the condition of the world grows worse and worse. Immorality is spreading through every nation. We’ve had millions upon millions of abortions. There are wars everywhere. And yet we are told that Our Lady of Fatima has nothing to say about any of this. Nothing to say to the Church in the present times. Nothing to say by way of warning that the world is heading for disaster. Oh no. It’s all in the past as of the year 2000. And again, who really believes that? Did anybody really believe that? I’ve talked to many priests, rank and file priests I’ve met all over the world, and even bishops. It is just assumed that we haven’t been given the whole thing, precisely as Mother Angelica says.
A little group of “traditionalists” and “Fatimists” kept talking about this, and Father Gruner kept speaking the truth that people knew or people suspected. And they were denounced as “Fatimists” and “extreme traditionalists” and ridiculed — just the way they were denounced and ridiculed when they said that Paul VI had never prohibited the Traditional Mass. They were right all along but they were laughed at all along. And they were laughed at when it concerned this.
But then there was a breakthrough. In November of 2006, Antonio Socci, a major celebrity in Italy, a very serious Catholic, the host of a television show and the personal acquaintance of Pope Benedict XVI and Cardinal Bertone, published a book. And what Socci says in his book is that he was on the side of all of those who were making fun of the Fatimists. He thought that in 2000 the Vatican had revealed everything and that the Fatimists were just a bunch of kooks who were promoting a crazy conspiracy theory. But then he began to look at the evidence. Socci is an honest man, and as he says in his book: “In the end, I had to surrender”.
The evidence was overwhelming. The vision of the bishop dressed in white could not possibly be the entirety of the Third Secret. He says in the introduction to his book—The Fourth Secret of Fatima — that he has reached a conclusion that is the opposite of what he had started out with. He wanted to destroy the Fatimists and he ended up being convinced by the evidence that they were absolutely right.
Not only that, Socci mastered the entire subject and he came up with insights, including a hypothesis that I will get to at the end of this talk, that help put this whole controversy in perspective. But he did something else that is very important. Aside from presenting the evidence that I’ve outlined here very briefly — and there’s a lot more of it but I can’t get to it all — he brought forward to the world the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla, the testimony uncovered by Solideo Paolini who is going to address you at this conference. He showed to the world what Solideo had brought to his attention.
Socci showed that during a telephone conversation with Archbishop Capovilla, Solideo discussed a document (see photocopy of original on page 25 and its translation on page 27 of this issue) in which the Archbishop had noted back in the 1960’s that Paul VI had read a text of the Secret for the first time in 1963, not 1965 as the Vatican had said in 2000. And there was an apparent discrepancy: How can there be two different dates? Is this a mistake? And finally during this conversation, the Archbishop admitted to Solideo that there are two different envelopes — the Capovilla envelope and the Bertone envelope. One envelope obviously contains the vision of the bishop dressed in white. The other envelope is the one that was in Barbarigo, the writing desk in the papal apartment.
And so Solideo, as he will tell you in more detail, asked the Archbishop point blank: “Are you saying then that there were two different texts of the Third Secret of Fatima?” And Archbishop Capovilla replied: “Per l’appunto” — meaning, exactly so. And Antonio Socci published that testimony and that answer to the entire world, and to this day the Vatican has not denied it.
But what happened is that Archbishop Bertone wrote a book — and this is quite amazing. He is now the Vatican Secretary of State, and he writes a book to answer Socci. In this book, which is entitled, The Last Visionary of Fatima, the Cardinal gives the appearance of answering Socci, but as Socci pointed out on his website and elsewhere, there is not a single answer in this book to any of the points he raised.
by Refusing to Answer
First of all, in this 187-page book the Cardinal never addresses the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla. That in itself concedes the entire case. There is a witness who says there are two texts of the Secret. One of those texts is in the papal apartment. The interviewer who worked with Cardinal Bertone on his book brings this claim to his attention and then questions the Cardinal, as part of the book, and the Cardinal avoids answering the question. He won’t even discuss the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla.
Now imagine being the subject of a criminal investigation. Someone comes to your house to interview you and he says: “Your next door neighbor claims that you went into his house and stole jewelry from his safe and brought it over to your house and hid the jewelry in your house. What do you say to the testimony of that witness against you?” And your answer is: “Would you like a cup of coffee?” or “Isn’t it a nice day?” or “Why don’t we go for a walk in the park?” or “I have a very important engagement now.” And that’s the end of your interview. You’ve never mentioned the testimony of your next door neighbor. Wouldn’t it be reasonable for the investigator to conclude that you agree that your neighbor has spoken the truth?
If he was going to write a book to answer Socci, the first thing the Cardinal had to do was address the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla. He refused to do so. Therefore he concedes that the witness has spoken the truth.
There Indeed Was a Second Text
He also ignores in his book the specific testimony that there’s a text in the papal apartment. This is brought to his attention by the interviewer in the book. And his answer is something like: “How can they be so sure that the text always remained in the Papal apartment?” Notice, he’s not denying that there’s a text in the papal apartment. He tries to shift our attention away from that to another issue — whether it was always in the papal apartment.
What does that mean? He’s basically admitting there was a text there and now he’s saying, “well, how do they know it was always there?” Well he would know whether it was always there. All he would have to do is ask: “Was there a text in the papal apartment?” He could have asked John Paul II while he was still alive. He could have asked Cardinal Ratzinger, who certainly knew and knows what’s in the papal apartment. He could have asked Archbishop Dziwisz, Pope John Paul II's beloved secretary, was there a text in the papal apartment? He could have asked any number of people whether there was a text in the papal apartment. Why didn’t he ask anybody? Either he did, and he didn’t like the answer, or he didn’t ask because he doesn’t want to know the answer. In any event, he concedes there was a text in the papal apartment.
Bertone Concedes the “etc.”
The Cardinal also ignores the “etc.”. The interviewer specifically brings to his attention the “etc.” issue, and he specifically tells Bertone that the “Fatimites” and the traditionalists are saying that this “etc.” indicates the missing words of the Virgin.
And what does Cardinal Bertone say about this? He says it’s a hashed and re-hashed hypothesis. But he doesn’t deny it. He doesn’t really address it at all. He knows it’s an issue. Yet, he doesn’t answer some simple questions: Did you ask Sister Lucy about the “etc.” when you claimed you interviewed her? The Cardinal says he has conducted three interviews with Sister Lucy (that lasted about ten hours in total). Did he ask her about the “etc.” during any of these interviews? Apparently not. Socci in his book asks why Archbishop Bertone, now Cardinal Bertone, did not ask Sister Lucy what follows the “etc.”. Where are the missing words of the Virgin? Why does the Cardinal apparently not want to know about the “etc.”?
And, by the way, why does the Vatican, in the Message of Fatima, not use the Fourth Memoir where the “etc.” appears? Why does the Vatican use the Third Memoir where Sister Lucy had not yet added the phrase, “In Portugal the dogma of the faith will always be preserved etc.”? Why does the Vatican use the Third Memoir and not the more complete Fourth Memoir? Why does the Vatican say in a footnote: oh yes, by the way, there is a Fourth Memoir, and Sister Lucy added a notation about Portugal and “etc.”?
No. It was not Sister Lucy’s “notation.” Those were the words of the Virgin Mary Herself! And yet the Vatican claimed in 2000 that those words were merely a “notation” by Sister Lucy.
As Socci asks in his book: How can they dare to claim those words of the Virgin were Sister Lucy’s notation, when obviously they were the words of the Virgin? And why won’t Cardinal Bertone talk about the “etc.” even though it’s presented to him as an issue? Why does he continue to ignore that issue? Why does he continue to ignore the testimony of Father Schweigl that there are two parts to the Secret: one part concerns the Pope; the other is a logical continuation of the words following the “etc.”? Why does he ignore that?
Why does he ignore every single claim of the “Fatimists,” as he calls them in his book? Why does he answer Socci without answering him? As Socci says on his website: “The Cardinal never answered me. He did not answer a single point I raised.”
Now if accusations are made against you, and you answer them in 187 pages which contain no answer, have you not admitted those accusations because you had the chance to answer them and failed to do so? You went on for 187 pages and said nothing.
Held Hostage to
Bertone’s Personal Opinion!
And there’s another point I’d like to cover. Pope John Paul II read a text of the Third Secret in 1978. His own spokesman, Joaquin Navarro-Valls admitted that to the press. And in Bertone’s book The Last Visionary of Fatima, the interviewer asks Cardinal Bertone: What about that? Did John Paul II read a text of the Third Secret in 1978?
And here is what the Cardinal said: “In my opinion, no.” What do you mean “in my opinion”? All the Cardinal had to do was ask Navarro-Valls: “Excuse me, did the Pope read a text of the Third Secret in 1978?” All the Cardinal had to do was ask John Paul II while he was still alive: “Holy Father, did you read a text of the Secret in 1978?” All the Cardinal had to do was ask Monsignor Dziwisz, who’s still alive and now the Archbishop of Krakow: “Did the Pope read a text of the Secret in 1978?” All the Cardinal had to do was ask any one of a hundred people who would know: “Did the Pope read a text of the Secret in 1978?”
And his answer to that question in his own book: “In my opinion, no.” In other words he never asked — he confined himself to an opinion — because he did not want to know the answer. Or he did ask, and doesn’t want to tell us the answer.
Bertone’s Case Entirely Depends
on His Personal Opinion
Now why is the Cardinal so concerned about not addressing whether the Pope read a text of the Third Secret in 1978? I will tell you why. If the Pope read a text of the Secret in 1978, the Vatican’s entire official account collapses.
The Vatican says that John Paul read a text of the Secret in 1981, and that this text was returned to the Holy Office archive. But there is no record of any text being taken from the Holy Office archive in 1978; so if the Pope read a text in 1978, it did not come from the Holy Office archive and did not go back to the Holy Office archive. Where did it come from and where did it go back to? Answer: The papal apartment, which dovetails with the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla that there is a text in the papal apartment — which testimony Cardinal Bertone refuses to address.
The Public Now Knows
Bertone is Hiding Something
Now, after the book was published by Cardinal Bertone and Socci said “You haven’t answered me,” Cardinal Bertone became a bit of a laughingstock. Because Socci said the Cardinal’s book is a disaster for him and for the Vatican. There were many accusations against the Vatican. “You had a chance to answer them. Instead of answering them, you ran away from all the questions and never answered a single one. And now you have a problem, because now more people than ever don’t believe you.” And Socci said “I’m not happy about that because I’m a Catholic before I’m a journalist. I don’t want the Vatican to look bad. I would rather be wrong.” He said, “I would rather that Cardinal Bertone had demolished my whole case in his book, but instead he answered nothing. And now everyone knows the Vatican must be hiding something.”
Bertone Next Goes on TV
So what happened next? The Secretary of State of the Vatican goes on television to try again to answer Socci. And we know he went on TV to answer Socci because the title of that episode of the Porta a Porta show was “The Fourth Secret of Fatima Does Not Exist”. So the whole show was about the title of Socci’s book.
So Bertone goes on TV to address the fourth secret. He appears on the show Porta a Porta, the most popular TV talk show in Italy. Everyone in Italy watches Porta a Porta. The Cardinal is joined by the former prime minister of Italy, the journalist Marco Politi, a lady journalist whose name I do not recall, the interviewer who worked with the Cardinal on his book (Giuseppe De Carli) and the host of the TV show, Mr. Vespa. And they’re all there to talk about Antonio Socci’s book.
And who isn’t there? Antonio Socci. They don’t invite Socci onto the show to talk about Socci’s book. They all want to attack Socci’s book without Socci being able to reply. And as Socci said, they gave themselves an empty goal to kick the soccer ball into. And what happened during that show? Socci tells us on his website. Cardinal Bertone scores a goal against himself on this TV show.
Again Bertone Concedes
the Capovilla Testimony
What’s the first thing that happens? Well they’re all there to talk about Socci’s book and the big thing that Socci introduces in his book is the testimony of Archbishop Capovilla. To paraphrase what Capovilla says: “Hello! there are two texts. I’m telling you now there are two texts. One is in the papal apartment in the wooden desk drawer — the desk called Barbarigo — and the other is in the Holy Office archive. I’m alive. I’m well. I’m telling you this. The whole world knows it.”
And here are Cardinal Bertone and four guests, and what do they say concerning Capovilla? Nothing! They never mention Archbishop Capovilla once during the entire TV show. Incredible — but that’s what happened.
So they’ve given away the case. The witness has spoken against them. They go on television. They never mention the witness. Obviously the witness is telling the truth. That’s why they won’t talk about his testimony. And it’s also obvious that there must have been an agreement among everybody on that show that they would not embarrass the Cardinal by mentioning this witness who blows the Cardinal’s story to pieces.
Bertone Now Admits
Cardinal Ottaviani’s Testimony
Now, during the same broadcast they mention Cardinal Ottaviani’s testimony that there is a text of the Third Secret consisting of twenty to twenty-five (25) lines on a single page, whereas, as we know, the text of the vision of the bishop dressed in white is sixty-two (62) lines and four pages. Even Cardinal Bertone admits on the show that Cardinal Ottaviani stated “categorically” that there are only twenty-five (25) lines and one page in the text. He admits that the Cardinal said that.
And his answer? He has no answer. He tries to explain it away by holding up the text of the vision on camera and suggesting that Cardinal Ottaviani overlooked two of the four pages and 37 of the sixty-two lines!
Bertone’s Newest Evidence
All Against His Own Cover-up
Now I’ve been talking about two envelopes throughout this speech. Fifty minutes into the broadcast Cardinal Bertone produces the envelopes he says are involved in the “packaging” of the Third Secret. As the host says: “And now, Eminence, the envelope.”
And so the Cardinal pulls out this big envelope. And he takes out of the big envelope, which was sealed by the Bishop of Fatima, a smaller envelope which is not sealed. And on that envelope, according to the Cardinal, Sister Lucy had written the name of the Bishop of Fatima. And he said that envelope is not sealed because it was inside the first one, which was sealed.
So we have one envelope from Sister Lucy. He opens that envelope, from which he then takes out a third envelope. That one is sealed and the seal had been broken. Now on the outside of that envelope — he holds it up to the camera and what do we see? She wrote on the envelope, “By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can be opened only in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria.”
Let’s go back to 2000. In 2000 Cardinal Bertone said he interviewed Sister Lucy and she told him that the Virgin had never given her any order about the Secret not being opened until 1960. That was just a date she picked herself, Cardinal Bertone claimed in 2000. And now, seven years later, he produces an envelope on camera written in Sister Lucy’s own handwriting: By express order of Our Lady this envelope can be opened only in 1960. Already we know there’s a major contradiction.
And then the Cardinal pulled out a second envelope from inside this one. Another sealed envelope which has exactly the same thing on the outside — “By express order of Our Lady, this envelope can be opened only in 1960 by the Cardinal Patriarch of Lisbon or by the Bishop of Leiria.”
Bertone Himself Shows Two Envelopes
So now we have — lo and behold! — two envelopes with identical warnings that this can be opened only in 1960. It is just as Archbishop Capovilla said: there are two different envelopes. And Cardinal Bertone was now asking us to believe that Sister Lucy put one sealed envelope inside the other sealed envelope, with identical warnings on both.
But ask yourselves: Would you put on the outside of an envelope: “This can be opened only in 1960,” seal it and then put it inside another envelope which says on the outside “This can be opened only in 1960” and then seal that one as well?
I don’t think Sister Lucy had obsessive-compulsive disorder. I think she used two envelopes because there were two different texts. Archbishop Capovilla said so, and Cardinal Bertone on television finally revealed it to the world.
And he had to show us those two envelopes because everybody now knows there are two envelopes. What, then, is he going to do? If he doesn’t show both envelopes now, the questions will never go away. He did show us both envelopes. He just put one inside the other. That’s my theory, at any rate, and I think it is the only possible explanation. It makes no sense that she would create two different sealed envelopes with the same warning for one document, and that the Vatican would never mention this even once before the TV show.
Bertone is Using a Mental Reservation
So let me conclude by asking a question. There is so much more I could get into. It would take three to four hours just to give you an outline. Am I saying that Archbishop, now Cardinal, Bertone is a liar? Is he simply lying about this?
Socci doesn’t think so, and I would propose to you this. You don’t have to conclude that this involves deliberate lying. What Socci says is that there’s a mental reservation going on. They decided back in 2000 that they would reveal the vision of the bishop dressed in white, but would hold back the text. And they would let the Pope speak about that text in his sermon at Fatima in May of 2000 when he says that the Message of Fatima is a warning about the tail of the dragon sweeping one-third of the stars from Heaven, meaning priests and religious. And we should be wary, we should be afraid of, we should avoid the tail of the dragon. The Pope’s apocalyptic reference makes no sense in relation to the first two parts of the Fatima Message, but it makes perfect sense in relation to a missing text of the Third Secret.
So Socci concludes that they may have bargained with the Pope: Holy Father, we can’t reveal the whole thing. Let’s reveal the vision. You talk about the text in your sermon and people will get the idea that it’s about Chapter 12, verses 3 and 4 of the Apocalypse.
The “Authentic Text”
And we’ve concluded, Holy Father, that this text that she wrote down, this one-page text with these terrible things in it, is really not authentic. We can’t really verify it, and John XXIII said much the same thing according to Capovilla. We don’t really know if it’s supernatural. So we really can’t say it’s authentic. So we’ll treat it as if it doesn’t exist. And so, when we say reveal the whole of the Third Secret of Fatima, we mean the authentic text.
And if you look at the TV show, the Cardinal speaks repeatedly of the “authentic” text. And he says very tellingly that he was at a meeting in 2000 when it was decided to reveal — listen carefully to this — “everything that actually existed in the Holy Office archives.” But actually not everything. Not the envelope with Sister Lucy’s writing on it.
Now, why would the Cardinal say “everything that actually existed in the Holy Office archives” instead of simply saying we decided to reveal the whole Third Secret? He knows there’s testimony about a text in the papal apartment, yet he talks about what they revealed from the Holy Office archive.
Why? It appears the Cardinal is making a mental distinction between what he now considers the “authentic” text in the archive and calls it that — the “authentic” text in the Holy Office archive — and what has been deemed the “inauthentic” or “not authentic” text in the papal apartment.
Bertone’s Mental Gymnastics Explained
That would explain why the Cardinal won’t talk about the text the Pope read in 1978 or the text referred to by Archbishop Capovilla. He is taking the position that this other text does not exist because according to the “official” account, in their minds it’s not “authentic.” So they are not strictly lying if they say “we’ve given you the authentic text in the Holy Office archive” because they have given us that. And that’s all they are giving us. Because in their view that’s all that’s “authentic.” And so it’s a mental reservation.
And yet after the TV show the Cardinal went on the radio in June and he made this curious statement. He said “I am firmly convinced” that there isn’t anything else to the Secret. That is astounding! How could he say “I am firmly convinced”? Is this now a matter of opinion? Is he suggesting to us, in case it comes out later on, that there might be something else that some people will claim later is the rest of the Third Secret, where I, personally, am “firmly convinced” that there’s nothing else? He wouldn’t be “firmly convinced” if he knew for a fact that there is nothing else. He would simply say there is nothing else. He’s leaving some wiggle room for himself with this statement on the radio in June.
Many People Still in the Dark!
So where does that leave us? Well basically we already know the Third Secret. It’s clear enough from the testimony I’ve outlined. But the problem is that not everyone knows it. Many people are in the dark and they have an obligation to find out. And the Vatican has a duty to tell them what’s in the Secret.
Because as Socci points out in his book, these are the words of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are a warning from Heaven itself. And it must be a warning of things so terrible that the result of ignoring the warning will be the loss of millions of souls for all eternity and the destruction of a greater part of humanity.
How Dare They!
How dare anyone, no matter how high his authority in the Church, keep those words from us — hide them in a safe in the papal apartment and take the position that they are not authentic? At the very least they should reveal those words and tell us why they think they’re not authentic. But they won’t even do that.
Help Free the Third Secret
So I would say to you, in conjunction with what I said yesterday about going back to your dioceses to start a movement throughout the Church for the Consecration of Russia, that you should also start a movement in your dioceses for the revelation of the entirety of the Third Secret. Because as Frère Michel said in 1985, the Consecration of Russia in his opinion won’t happen until the insult to God involved in the censorship of the Third Secret is redressed. And the only way to redress that censorship is to reveal the rest of the Secret.
And so just as the fate of the world and the Church in our time is bound up in the Consecration of Russia, the Consecration of Russia is bound up in the full and complete revelation of the Third Secret of Fatima.
I implore you to go back to your dioceses and carry forward what Socci has so courageously begun in Italy, and what Solideo Paolini has begun in Italy and what Father Gruner has been doing in Canada and throughout the world with his apostolate. Be apostles for the Consecration of Russia and for the revelation of the Third Secret of Fatima — for the good of the Church and the whole world.