.

One of the major shortcomings of TIA is, they usually do not post
dates for their various pages, so you often have no idea of when a
particular statement was made, or when the page was written,
or when such words as "recently" refer to:  


"...Some unidentified person who had access to this
docuмent released a photo of it very recently."


In this case, however, they do have the date of the translation at
the bottom of the page -- maybe that refers to the whole article,
but it is customary to put the date of the article at the TOP of the
page, to avoid any confusion.  This is another shortcoming of TIA.


In this case in particular, it is rather indiscrete of the TIA authors to
post this page as if the docuмent might be the actual Third Secret,
because it is most OBVIOUSLY NOT the Third Secret, and that is so
simple to prove, that a child could do it.


Other than that, they are most capable at translating Portuguese to
English and vice versa, so we can be pretty sure that the page
displayed actually says what this webpage presents it as saying.


It is rather impossible for anyone to come across a copy of the real
Third Secret lying around, such as among the personal effects of
Sr. Lucy.  But furthermore, it seems rather conspicuous that these
TIA authors would present such a thing, as if something like this,
which had been perhaps collected "very recently" could be
authentic, since they have another page on TIA that says the real
Sr. Lucy died around 1960 and was replaced by an imposter who
then died after A.D. 2000.  If this page was "released recently" then
why would it not have been FOUND 'recently' as well?  No mention
is made of how long the person who found it has had it, or how its
authenticity could be established.  It could, in other words, be a
fake, especially since there have been several other fakes at large.


Here is their post of the translation:


English Translation

    Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret: This part is the apostasy in the Church!

    Our Lady showed us the individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' in front of a multitude that was cheering him.

    But there was a difference from a true holy Father, his devilish gaze, this one had the gaze of evil.

    Then, after some moments we saw the same Pope entering a Church, but this Church was the Church of hell; there is no way to describe the ugliness of that place. It looked like a gray cement fortress with broken angles and windows similar to eyes; it had a beak in the roof of the building.

    Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

    In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.

    Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.

    The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

    If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.

    Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44

Posted April 27, 2010

.

The Third Secret is still locked up in the Vatican, yet to be released. How could they know this was the real one? The Pope hasn't released it!

He should have done so 50 years ago.

The problem with this is, it's impossible for it to be 'the real one'.

The Real Third Secret is nothing like this.  

I find it noteworthy that not a single one of the several fakes
have been anywhere close to what the real one looks like.  

So either the fakers don't "get it" and that's why they miss
with every attempt;  or else, they're thinking that nobody else
"gets it" -- so why should they even try?


Because all these ridiculous bad guesses are just too much.

.

.

Example:  

The Blessed Virgin Mary does not use bad grammar, or make
nonsensical statements.  Everything she says carries a lot of
weight because it is packed with meaning.  

She comes from a place where ALL TRUTH IS KNOWN, and she
has NO REASON to make silly errors with her words.  

Keeping that in mind, check out this sentence:  

    "Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima."  

That is a compound sentence, which is not a problem in itself, but
as such, the second part, after the comma, should refer to the
first part, especially in light of the fact that the subject of the
second sentence is "ITS."  

"Its authority will be moved," refers to the authority of something.
Now, would it be the authority of -- the subject of the first part?  
Normally, that would be the case.  Such as:  "My apple is green,
but its skin is thin."  Obviously, "its" refers to the subject, "apple,"
because you don't say "green has a skin."
 
However, with this:  "Since the apple has a worm on top, it's going
to be removed;"  is the apple going to be removed, or is the worm
going to be removed?  

So in the quote, can we be sure that it does not mean that the
authority of the dogma of the faith will be removed and delivered
to Fatima?  But if that were the meaning, then this authority which
will be moved from Rome to Fatima has not been conserved in Rome,
so how can it now be moved out of Rome, after having not been
conserved there?  Also, how does a dogma's authority have any
specific location, such as Rome or such as Fatima?  

Alternatively, if it means that the authority of Rome will be moved
to Fatima because in Rome the dogma of the faith has not been
conserved, it would seem it is as a consequence or perhaps a
punishment for not conserving the dogma in Rome.  

Of the two possibilities, the second seems the more likely.  

Similarly, we have the preceding and subsequent sentences, as
follows:

    In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.

    Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.

    The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

Let's take the subsequent one first.  What is the cathedral of Rome?  
One might think that's St. Peter's, however, that is not a cathedral, but
a basilica.  The Cathedral of Rome is San Giovanni.  It is one of the
most ancient churches in the world, and steeped in history, but this
message says it must be destroyed.  One is left wondering if it will
be destroyed BECAUSE of this message, or because of something
else.  The more likely is the latter.  But what that cause is, is not
mentioned, therefore we have an unknown force that will destroy San
Giovanni Cathedral in Rome, and the reason is because the dogma of
the faith has not been conserved in Rome.

Finally there is the "kingdom of John Paul II."  When has Our Lady ever
referred to any location, especially one in Rome, as "a kingdom" of a
pope, but not only a pope, but a pope who would not be elected for
another 34 years?  There is one time at Fatima when she predicted a
second war (world war) and a worse one, that would begin in during
the reign of Pius XI, but he would not be elected for another 5 years
(from 1917 to 1922).  But even so, she didn't say, "the kingdom of
Pius XI."  This lack of precedent makes the phrase look rather contrived.
It wouldn't be the first time Our Lady said something that was a shocker,
for she said to St. Bernadette, "I am the Immaculate Conception."  That
one sentence put a number of theologians into pretzel shapes of logical
contortions.  But it had enormous implications.  

For her to say "the kingdom of John Paul II" would seem to imply that
the See of Peter somehow belongs to one particular Pope, and by any
reasonable assessment, one of the worst of all the popes.  Which other
pope instead of dying to resist indifferentism endeavored to practice it?
And he is called the King of the Papacy by Our Lady?  I don't think so.
But in any event, this "kingdom" apparently refers to Vatican City, for
that's the only sovereign state over which the Pope could be said to
be the "king."

The "cornerstone of Peter's grave" is a real puzzle.  When the tomb of
St. Peter was discovered (and it was only recently) there was no
cornerstone there.  All of the "stones" you see there today have been
brought in to dress up the space, because it was just a hole in the
dirt when it was found.  A cornerstone is for the foundation of a stone
building (not for a wood frame or a steel building).  And additionally, the
laying of a cornerstone has a lot of symbolic significance for Freemasons.

The transferral of a "cornerstone" as part of the translation of relics and/or
power and/or authority from one place to another is more of a Masonic
type of thing than a Catholic one.  Last but not least, the conferred
Scripture is regarding "the head of the corner," which is otherwise known
as the keystone, not the cornerstone.  A keystone is the one at the top
of an archway that locks all the other stones into place, making a strong
arch that spans over a gateway or a passageway. To confuse this with
a stone that is placed in the ground as part of the foundation is not a
small matter.  Since there are no keystones or cornerstones in St. Peter's
tomb, our best guess would be "some important part of St. Peter's
grave."

Therefore, we have:

In Vatican City, some important part of St. Peter's grave
shall be translated to Fatima, Portugal.  The authority of Rome
will be moved to Fatima because in Rome the dogma of the faith
has not been conserved.  This is a consequence or perhaps a
punishment for not conserving the dogma in Rome.  We have an
unknown force that will destroy San Giovanni Cathedral in Rome,
and the reason is because the dogma of the faith has not been
conserved in Rome.


Usually, when you reconstruct a text like this based on the context,
it makes the whole more clear.  But in this case, does this
reconstruction help the meaning or make it less understandable?  


.

So much for keeping secrets if these people could get hold of it.
 :confused1: :confused1: :confused1:

.

Another example of why this can't be the real Third Secret is, that
it borrows too much from what had already been said.  This makes
it repeat previous words from Our Lady's message.  

But the previous words that she spoke at Fatima, in the first,
second and third apparitions, were not repeats of anything else.
Therefore, this aspect of a repetition in the Third Secret makes it
look like it does not belong in context.  



But the real Third Secret has to look like it fits perfectly, like hand-
in-glove, or key-in-lock.  This one doesn't.



Specifically,

There are 118 words here before you get to the first word that this
page claims was spoken by Our Lady.  Are those 118 words part of
the Third Secret?  The first line of text says that they are:

"Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret:..."

I'm not counting those words as among the 118 that are not Our
Lady's.  If I had done so it would be 130 words, not 118.  Where
in all of the Fatima Message does Sister Lucia waste 130 words?
So this is not like Sister Lucia to do this.  

When did Sr. Lucia ever refer to the Third Secret as "the third
fragment of the secret?"  Never.  Nor did she ever say in a letter
to someone, "Now I'm going to reveal" something.  So this is not
like her, either.  

Immediately before you get to the actual word of Our Lady, this
page says that the children... "Next, we raised our eyes to Our
Lady who said to us:"  But the place where the text breaks off at
the real Third Secret is in mid-sentence, not when the children all
"raised their eyes" to her.  And why would Francisco have raised his
eyes to her, when he wasn't able to hear her words?  



Then it has: "This part is the apostasy in the Church!"  Who said that?
Was this Sr. Lucia's words or Our Lady's?  Nowhere is Sr. Lucia so
vague as to make it ambiguous who it is that is speaking.



The place where Our Lady left off was at least immediately following
this sentence, but perhaps in the middle of a sentence which began
as:  "In Portugal, the dogma of the faith shall always be preserved..."  

Do these words, then, continue that beginning? :  

   You saw the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

    In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's grave must be removed and transferred to Fatima.

    Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima.

    The cathedral of Rome must be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

    If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.

    Our Lady told us that this is written,[in] Daniel 9:24-25 and Matthew 21:42-44

That is to say, is this a logical continuation of that sentence? :  

"In Portugal, the dogma of the faith shall always be preserved.  You saw
the apostasy in the Church; this letter can be opened by the holy
Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960..."

What "letter" is she talking about?  There was no "letter" being spoken
of on July 17th, 1917 by Our Lady.  

The words "this letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be
announced after Pius XII and before 1960" are conspicuously contrived.
They borrow from messages that Sr. Lucia received years later (regarding
writing these things down, and when the writings could be unsealed).  

Also, Sr. Lucia was not able to read or write at that time.  Our Lady had
only just told her that summer that she should study to learn to read and
write.  So she would not be talking about any non-existent "letter" in the
real Third Secret!  

"You saw the apostasy in the Church" is frankly ridiculous.  Our Lady had
said just a few moments before, after the vision of hell, "You have seen
hell where poor sinners go..."  and this quip above is just a copy-cat of
those words (You saw the apostasy in the Church).



There is a LOT more..............


.

Dated April 1st?

Hmmm....  I didn't catch that.  Good eye.  

The posted image looks like "Tuy 1/4/944" or maybe 1/9/944 -- so I wonder
how they think it's supposed to be "1944" when it says "944?"

In America that would be January 4th or 9th, but this is Portugal.  

Any way you look at it, there's a problem.  

But April Fool's is perhaps the worst problem.






.