Fatima: Third Secret Latest…

Fatima: Third Secret Latest…

More Explosive News from the Convent in Coimbra  SrLuciafacingright

by Christopher A. Ferrara April 10, 2015

In a previous column on this subject I noted an explosive article by Antonio Socci, on the front page of the Italian daily Il Libero for August 17, 2014. Socci reported that in a biography of Sister Lucia published by the Sisters of the Convent in Coimbra in 2013, it is revealed that on January 3, 1944 the Virgin appeared to Sister Lucia and instructed her, regarding the vision pertaining to the Third Secret, to “be at peace, and write what I have commanded you, but not, however, that which has been given to you to understand its meaning.”

Thus was clearly revealed the existence of an explanation of the vision’s meaning by the Virgin Herself that was not written on the same the date the vision was committed to paper. Lucia’s own fellow nuns, in a book they themselves have published to the world, now confirm that something is missing from the vision standing alone: the very thing we have always said is missing, that being precisely the Virgin’s explanation of the vision’s significance which can only be found in a related text we have yet to see.

Now there is even more to report on this breakthrough. As my previous column noted, in view of what the biography had revealed the Italian “Fatimologist” Solideo Paolini wrote twice to the Convent: in February and May of 2014, before Socci’s article appeared.  In a conference published on YouTube on March 11, 2015, Paolini reveals not only what we already know — that both letters were met with silence — but also provides further details on this correspondence.

Paolini notes that the biography’s bibliography cites two never-published sources from Lucia’s writings: a certain letter of hers and a diary. Accordingly, in his first letter to the Convent, received on February 5, 2014, he had asked for “permission to come to the Convent to read these two unpublished sources,” which “you yourselves have cited in your book.”  Two months passed with no answer. 

Paolini wrote again in May of 2014 to advise that he took this silence as a reply that he could not consult the two works and that he had accepted this, but that he had one question: “Yes or no.  Is there a text that explains the significance of the vision, written not on that date [January 3, 1944, the date the vision was committed to paper] but subsequently?” He also asked: “In the works which I asked to consult is there any reference to something more regarding the Third Secret of Fatima, as of yet unpublished?” This letter was received at the Convent on June 6. There was again no response.

In the conference published on YouTube, however, Paolini reports that in October of 2014, after Socci’s article appeared, he received what he describes as an “extremely scanty note” in which the Prioress of the Convent advised that “it is not possible for now to consult the documents you request.  In its time, everything will be published.”

Paolini notes the obvious and totally devastating point: “The Vatican has told us everything was published, but the prioress of the convent says everything will be published.” Paolini also notes the Prioress’ resounding silence in response to his specific question whether the two unpublished sources contain further references to the Third Secret. 

There is no longer any good faith basis to deny that the Vatican is hiding something. The publication of this biography and the results of Paolini’s correspondence with the Convent at Coimbra demonstrate once again that the plans of men can impede the designs of Heaven for only so long.  The worldly-wise Vatican functionaries who have thus far succeeded in burying the integral Third Secret and preventing the Consecration of Russia are in a race, not with mere time, but with God Himself. They will lose; that much is certain. What remains uncertain, however, is how much damage God will allow them to inflict before His will is done and the imperatives of the Message of Fatima are heeded by a Church in crisis.   Source


Are those within the Vatican who are desperate to suppress the Third Secret doing so because it reveals their evil machinations, their attempts via the “reforms” of Vatican II and other means to re-make the Church in their own image – i.e. to destroy the Church of Christ? Who could watch the manipulation of the Synod on the Family without drawing that, it seems to me, very obvious conclusion? Or is there some other explanation for the suppression and deceit surrounding the Third Secret? Share your thoughts… 

Comments (56)

  • Benedict Carter


    Yes, I agree with all of that.

    April 15, 2015 at 1:05 pm
  • westminsterfly

    This is an interesting article http://www.fatima.org/apostolate/vlarchive/pdf/vl133_BT030_Socci-Salza2_HiRes.pdf which partially deals with the issue of Sr Lucia allegedly saying that the 1984 consecration averted a nuclear war in 1985. If that allegation did indeed come from the ‘journalist’ Carlos Evaristo, then it is worth nothing, because it has been proven that he has fabricated the contents of interviews with Sister Lucia.

    April 15, 2015 at 3:16 pm
    • editor


      Thanks for that John Salza article – I’ll read it later, but just popped in to say that you are absolutely correct about Carlos Evaristo – in fact, if my memory serves me correctly (for once!) he’s the one who confronted Fr Gruner in public and has made a bit of a career out of sabotaging both Fr Gruner and the Fatima message.

      April 15, 2015 at 3:57 pm
  • Ivanhoe

    What makes things worse in terms of trust is the fact that the Sr. Lucia which went public is probably not the real Sr. Lucia. There is clear evidence looking at the traits of the face of both Lucias that the second one is fake. The true Sr. Lucia probably refused to be in public and the convent was under pressure. It is very painful to acknowledge that we all have been deceived for so many years. Lord, have mercy on those who are responsible for this deceit. There is urgent need to make these observations public:

    April 17, 2015 at 2:54 pm
    • editor


      We have discussed (and dismissed) the theory that there were “two Lucias”

      “The true Sr Lucia” as you put it, was the most obedient Religious as her writings and spiritual director testify.

      It’s just too far fetched for words. Best to concentrate on the known facts about Fatima and leave the conspiracy theorists to their fun and games.

      April 17, 2015 at 3:34 pm
  • westminsterfly

    I went into that link, although I had seen it before – it’s utter nonsense. There is no ‘clear evidence’ at all. Not a scrap. Anyone who has had their photo taken over many years, taking into account the effects of ageing, using different cameras, at different angles, in different lighting, would exhibit the same alleged discrepancies.
    They say the camera never lies, but it does. I only remarked on this last week to a friend of mine. My neighbour’s flat is up for sale and pictures of the rooms have been put online by two different estate agents. Although it’s the same place, the way these photos have been taken make the property look totally different. It is a common occurrence.
    Take Editor’s advice and drop this red herring. To continue with it is to play into the hands of those who discredit the good work being done by the promoters of the full Fatima message.

    April 17, 2015 at 4:28 pm
    • editor


      How true. I cannot believe the lies my camera has been telling for years!

      Seriously, I have used that same argument many times, that we all change over time and that there are lots of variables to be taken into account when looking at photos. I mean, it’s obvious, isn’t it, that I’m not ALWAYS going to look young, slim, glamorous, blah blah, especially on a rainy day… 😀

      To conclude, you are right – the “two Lucias” theory is nothing more than a red herring. A distraction.

      April 17, 2015 at 4:50 pm
  • crofterlady

    I’ve sent a letter to Mr. Putin telling him many of us do not believe the lies peddled by the West regarding him and Russia etc. I asked him not to retaliate to Nato’s provocations as there is another way. I then told him about Fatima and asked him to request the Pope to do the Consecration. If anybody else would like to write to him herewith the link:


    Personally I think the man is very maligned and that we are not told the real truth.

    April 24, 2015 at 5:20 pm
    • editor


      Now, that’s what I call Catholic Action – with bells on!

      I will follow your good example and write to him as well.

      April 24, 2015 at 6:06 pm
  • John

    There is a very good talk by Bishop Fellay on you tube Bishop Fellay End times/3rd secret. Well worth watching

    April 28, 2015 at 12:18 am

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: