Chojnowski has a lot of plausible arguments against the authenticity of this text.
Hi Yeti,
Chojnowski admits he never submitted it to his handwriting experts for analysis. But a renowned handwriting expert in Spain did do the analysis and a book has been published with the details:
https://www.traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g32ht_Analyst.htmSo there is no doubt that the handwriting is Sr. Lucia's. The only questions revolve around the tampering with the handwritten words on the page. The TIA guy gives his opinion on how to "descramble" it. But all of the words on the page are Sr. Lucia's. Moving sentences from one part of the page to another part of the page does not change the meaning in any substantial way.
I suspect that whoever shared the Third Secret was under a vow to not share it. So they scrambled the message up before sharing it. That way they could say that they did not violate their vow.
------
Chojnowski presents his reasons for why he did not pay for his own handwriting analysis. Here is what he said (my comments in
bold):
1) I have only received one donation to Sister Lucy Truth from someone interested in the TIA Third Secret. The donation was a tax-deductible donation to "Sister Lucy Truth" for $200. When discussing the cost of the analysis and of writing up the results for this docuмent, I found out that the cost was going to be $500. The docuмent itself, with its obvious problems, did not warrant the expenditure of the extra money when we have so little to spend. Every dime donated to "Sister Lucy Truth" goes to either the investigations themselves, maintaining the website, or paying the fees to the bank for upkeep of the various accounts.
Response: Says he didn't have enough money. Fine. But instead of leaving it at that. He ignores the findings of someone who did have the money. Weird.2) The docuмent itself had a very questionable origin, we discovered this when we had 3 different people at Sister Lucy Truth actually look at the docuмent, check it using computer programs, and look up the scriptural references that are made in the docuмent. a) computer analysis seems to show that many of the words of the text were cut and pasted on to it. b) this docuмent has an unknown origin --- coming from "someone in Portugal" and being advertised, other than on TIA, on a website whose address is "Our Lady is God." c) the "letter" is from a fax of a copy of the letter.
Response: He says the docuмent has a "questionable origin." Which is precisely why he should have paid for a handwriting analysis to prove that the ultimate "origin" is Sr. Lucia. Someone else did what he should have done. It matters not who handled the message. It matters who wrote the message.3) The date is truly odd. If you turn over the letter the year appears as 666. When has a year ever been written with 3 numbers? Also it is dated April 1st, which seems to indicate that it could very well be an "April fools" joke meant to discredit those who are genuinely interested in the actual content of the Third Secret.
Response: He says the docuмent has an "odd" date. Again, this is probably just the result of the scrambling of the original text by the person who decided to make it public. The important thing is Sr. Lucia wrote every word of it by her own hand. This is scientifically proven now.4) The thumb mark, supposedly meant to prove that this is Sister Lucy's writing, was smudged. Why have a thumb print when it is smudged? How would that prove anything? Sister Lucy NEVER used a thumb print in any of her other authentic writings.
Response: He says it has a "smudged" thumbprint. Does this even deserve a response? This is digging, no? Again, a scientific analysis has already proven the text was written by Sr. Lucia.5) The biblical references, supposedly given by Our Lady in this Secret, are clearly and traditionally meant to refer to Christ and not to the Church or to the Church in our time.
Response: He is wrong. The reference the Daniel, chapter 9, is the verse that provides the timeframe when the end times "abomination of desolation" will occur. Jesus himself references this verse in Matthew 24 when discussing the end times. The same "abomination of desolation" is discussed in Apocalypse 17. The Harlot of Babylon is in a desert (a desolate place) and on her forehead a name was written: "A mystery; Babylon the great, the mother of the fornications, and the abominations of the earth." This is the description of the false worship in the Counterfeit Church of the Beast, aka the Antichrist. And the 70 "weeks" of Daniel refers to 70 years. The word for "weeks" in Hebrew is "shavuim." That word is the plural of the word "Shavuot," which is the name of the "Feast of Weeks" that occurs one time per year in the Hebrew calendar. We call it Pentecost. The 70 years starts in 1959, which was the year that John XXIII announced the Vatican II council. Our Lady ordered that the Third Secret be announced "after Pius XII and before 1960."6) The text is heretical since it clearly indicates that the origin of authority in the Church shall be transferred from Rome to Fatima. Rome is the Apostolic See of Peter and it would be heretical to say that that can be transferred to any other place. The pope could live in another place, as has been the case, but he is pope because he is bishop of Rome.
Response: This is a misunderstanding of how Salvation History works. The "end times" culminate in the "consummation of the age." This consummation results in the destruction of the current Heaven and Earth and the beginning of the New Heaven and New Earth (Apocalypse 21). So the Third Secret is speaking symbolically about this event. It is identical to the concept of the future "Reign of Mary." This is a supernatural mystery.7) The "cathedral of Rome" is clearly misidentified as St. Peter's rather than St. John Lateran --- which is the true cathedral church of Rome. Our Lady would not misidentify this church in such a way.
Response: There is no misidentification. Chojnowski is clearly wrong. Look at the text. The only reference to St. Peter in the docuмent is this: "the cornerstone of Peter's tomb." It says nothing about St. Peter's being the Cathedral of Rome. Again, check it yourself. And then ask yourself if you should trust Chojnowski's analysis on this topic. Very sloppy.8) By a description of the "church" entered into by the "pope of the evil eyes" which exactly describes the new church built at Fatima, along with mentioning the name of John Paul II, I think those who produced this docuмent were creating foresight from hindsight.
Response: This is his opinion. Everybody's got one. In no way does it invalidate the fact that Sr. Lucia wrote the docuмent in her own hand. 9) Also, just as an aside, I have never received one bit of help or cooperation from any one at Tradition in Action, even though I have asked for it.
Response: What???? Who cares? We have Sr. Lucia's handwriting confirmed by experts and this guy is airing his dirty laundry.10) After looking at this text intensely over the course of days, I can tell you that I believe that it is a joke, meant to discredit those who are interested in finding out the full message of the Third Secret and who have doubts about the completeness of what was released by the Vatican in 2000.
Response: It is Sr. Lucia's handwriting. Confirmed. Not a joke.
Topic: The TIA 3rd Secret of Fatima (Read 14749 times)