Atila Guimaraes has gone into a Sherlockian mode. This is what he has come up with in trying to unscramble and decipher that "Third Secret": (Read his whole article here:  http://traditioninaction.org/HotTopics/g33ht_Decipher.htm)

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

 Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a
 Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy
 Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil,
 but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze,
 this one had the gaze of evil.

 Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church,
 after some moments, but 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.

 Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority
 will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be
 destroyed and a new one built in Fatima.

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

 This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be
 announced after Pius XII and before 1960.

 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.
 (thumbprint)

This is serious cloak-and-dagger stuff.

The "Cathedral of Rome" is St. John Lateran.  That makes no sense in this letter.
.
Consider:
.
IF what Atlila has published here is really what took place and the deciphered text he proposes is the actual letter of Sister Lucia which is the Third Secret, THEN, just try to imagine the reaction of most Novus Ordo church-goers when they hear the news. They're going to accuse Atila of being a "conspiracy theorist." Alternatively, if the "news" doesn't make headlines, they're going to say we're getting fake news from unreliable sources and you can't believe everything you see anymore. I know one for example who will tell me, I'm sure, that HE EVEN ADMITS TO USING PHOTOSHOP!
.
If any of us are going to attempt to TELL them about this news, we had best be prepared for their accusations and heated rhetoric.
.
They're going to say, "You just don't believe the Pope, do you?" or "You must be sedevacantist." Because if we take issue with what was passed out as the "third secret" in A.D. 2000, we must "have an ax to grind" and we must just be "looking for something else to disbelieve," because we are not being "faithful" to the Holy See like good Catholics. Right?
.

Here is a portion of an online article at the CFN website from a year ago. The colored portion in the middle has a little more meaning, it seems to me, in light of Atila's "diciphered text": 

http://www.cfnews.org/page10/page104/socci_indictment_of_francis.html

The reference to Romans 1:22-23 is memorable.

Lions and Tigers and Bears

            Under the heading “Disturbing Show,” Socci denounces the preposterous and scandalous ecological light show projected onto the façade of Saint Peter’s on no less than the Feast of the Immaculate Conception. Entitled Fiat Lux (Let there be Light), the show was “a mocking challenge and a parody of the Gospel in which the expression indicates the act of the Creator and then identifies the Light that is Christ who has come to illuminate the darkness.” 
            Replete with pictures of animals but devoid of even a hint of Christian symbolism, this spectacle represents a complete reversal of the message of the Gospel: “the world projects its light on the Church immersed in darkness. And in that show the Church receives the light of the world ( p. 1 3 9 ).” And as the world’s imagery was cast onto the basilica that stands at the heart of the Church, the light on the crèche in Saint Peter’s Square was extinguished because “the light of the Baby Jesus must never disturb the staging of the new ecological religion ( p. 139 ).”
            Here Socci points to a stunningly appropriate passage in Scripture, from the Epistle to the Romans: “For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things (Rom. 1:22-23).” And here yet another devastating assessment thrown at the feet of Francis:

            "But above all, Father Bergoglio [a reference to the Pope’s penchant for introducing himself thus], how is it possible that you do not notice and do not indicate other emergencies than those of the climate, or at least with equal insistence? The apostasy of entire peoples from the faith of the true God is not a drama that merits your most ardent appeals? The war against the family and against life? The neglect of Christ and the massacre of Christian communities? It seems that only the environment and other themes of the religion of political correctness merit your passion. 

            "A great French intellectual, Alain Finkielkraut, has described you as “Supreme Pontiff of the world journalistic ideology.” Is he wrong? Does he exaggerate?

            "In effect, in 'your' Church it seems that the themes of separating refuse and recycling take precedence over the tragedy of entire peoples who, in the turn of a few years, have abandoned the faith. You sound the alarm over “global warming” while the Church for two millennia has sounded it concerning the fire of Hell" (p. 142).

            From here, Socci launches into a discussion of the Message of Fatima and precisely its warnings about the loss of souls in Hell for all eternity. The Madonna of Fatima, he writes, “did not present the calculations of environmentalists on the climate of the planet, but caused the little children to see the eternal fire of Hell, and told them, sadly: ‘You have seen Hell, where the souls of poor sinners go. To save them, God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my Immaculate Heart. Many souls go to Hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them’.” 
            This, Socci continues, “is the real tragedy, Holy Father, the eternal perdition of multitudes. Not—if you will permit me—the loss of biodiversity, or at least not for us Christians. Yet you never speak of it. Rather, sometimes you almost induce the belief that everyone will be saved because ‘God does not condemn. (p. 142-143).’”
            Summing up his unconcealed contempt for the Pope’s preoccupation with global warming rather than the eternal fire of which Our Lady came to warn the world at Fatima, Socci writes:

            "Before the spiritual catastrophe of the eternal perdition of multitudes, which induced the mother of God to come earnestly to Earth, I find it frankly incomprehensible that you preoccupy yourself for the most part—as you did in your encyclical Laudato si —with biodiversity, the fate of worms and little reptiles, the lakes, and the abuse of plastic bottles and air-conditioning" ( p. 1 4 8 ).

A Pope Who Doesn’t Like Catholics?

            Socci’s indictment next proceeds to the heading “Attack on the Faith,” a reference to enemies within the Church since Vatican II, whose subversion has been lamented (too little and too late) by every Pope since the Council, including Benedict XVI. It was Benedict who (during the Mass for the opening of the conclave that elected him) declared that today having “a clear and certain faith” is denounced as “fundamentalism.” Citing that testimony, Socci throws a series of gauntlets Francis’s feet:

            "I invite you, Father Bergoglio, to reread attentively these words because they describe dramatically what is occurring during your pontificate. In fact, it is precisely you personally, Holy Father, who accuse of 'fundamentalism' those who have a clear and certain faith and bear witness to their fidelity to Catholic doctrine….

            "You, curiously, are convinced that the danger for the Church of today is Christians fervent in their faith and those pastors who defend the Catholic creed. In your Evangelii gaudium you attack “some who dream of a monolithic doctrine” and those who “use a language completely orthodox.”

            "Should we then prefer those who are carried here and there by every ideology and use heretical language? Evidently yes, seeing that they are never attacked by you.

            "If one chooses any day, one will almost always find that you, in your discourse, attack those you call 'rigorists,' 'rigid,' that is, men with fervent faith, whom you identify with 'Scribes and Pharisees'" (p. 153-155).

            Socci does not mince words in addressing Francis’s well-known constant resort to a false antithesis between mercy and doctrinal rigor, citing one of the innumerable discourses in which Francis declares that so-called “doctors of the law,” who know doctrine well, are estranged from the mercy of God. “But you, Holy Father,” writes Socci:

            "should overcome your personal resentment toward those who have studied; you should know that, in the Christian horizon, it is completely absurd to oppose mercy to Truth, because both are incarnated in the same Jesus Christ. Thus it is false to oppose doctrine to the pastoral, because that would be to oppose the Logos (doctrine) to the Good Shepherd (the Truth made flesh): Jesus is the Logos (the Truth made flesh) and, at the same time, the Good Shepherd" (p. 159). 

            Socci also focuses on Francis’s justly infamous speech attacking his conservative opposition at the close of Synod 2016, wherein he blasted the prelates who had resisted having the pre-written, heterodox Instrumentum laboris shoved down their throats as “the Synod’s” final report. As Francis declared in that harangue, his opponents had:

            "… closed hearts that often hide even behind the teaching of the Church, or behind good intentions, to sit in the chair of Moses and judge, sometimes with superficiality and superiority, to judge difficult cases and wounded families…. 

            "The true defenders of doctrine are not those who defend the letter but the spirit; not the idea but the man; not the formula, but the gratuitous love of God and of his pardon." 

            Here we see the umpteenth example of Francis’ penchant for the false antithesis: the letter versus the “spirit” of doctrine; the idea versus the man; the “formula” versus the love of God and his pardon. But there is no opposition at all between these concepts; in fact, they are inseparable.
            Socci has had quite enough of the past three years of this sort of Modernist sophistry, and he fires with both barrels:

            "So doing, do you not think that you have disqualified your predecessors and all the Magisterium of the Church, in order to affirm your strictly personal concept of mercy different from the doctrine of the Church?...

            "Evidently, even Jesus would have been, according to you, doctrinaire, a rigorist, one who defends the idea instead of the man.

            "In effect—applying your criterion—we would have to say that Jesus would not have been accepted to a seminary during your pontificate because he was the most fundamentalist of all; in fact, not only was he certain of the truth, but he proclaimed himself the Truth made flesh ('I am the way, the truth, and the life.' Jn 14,6)."

.
The praise of the devil referred to in this diciphered text is environmentalism and global warming raised to the status of a religion in which moral depravity, impurity and blasphemy of the sacraments and Our Blessed Mother are ignored. 

It would make sense that if they could purloin her letter they could just as well impostor her person.
.
If so, the Church has led the way on Fake News. 

This is an update published by TIA:


http://traditioninaction.org/Questions/B965_Begona.html

Spanish Handwriting Expert Speaks
on the Third Secret

From La Coruña to Los Angeles



Dear Mr. Guimarães,

 I am sending the post I published that has an interview with the handwriting expert Begoña Slocker de Arce, which may be of interest to you. It is preceded by some of my considerations.

 The important thing is to know that the Secret is gradually gaining greater interest and becoming known.

      Yours sincerely,

      Moimunan

______________________


 The Editor responds:

 Dear Mr. Moimunan,

 I thank you very much for sending me both your comments and the interview granted by Begoña Slocker de Arce to José Maria Zabala. They are precious docuмents to confirm the authenticity of the Third Secret we posted in 2010.

 TIA translated them to English and is posting them below for the benefit of our readers on this eve of the 100^th anniversary of the first apparition of Our Lady in Fátima.

      Cordially,

      Atila S. Guimarães

 
______________________



 
Good Reasons to Believe in the Secret's Authenticity

 Moimunan



In an interview in El Semanal Digital [The Weekly Digital], the author of the book The Best Kept Secret of Fatima, José Maria Zabala asked Begoña Slocker de Arce about her analysis that he published in full in the last chapter of his book. (The rest of his book does not deal with this theme – that is, the authenticity of the Secret that had already been published on April 27, 2010, by the website Tradition in Action – but rather the more or less known and controversial generalities about Fatima and the Third Secret in particular).
 
 The publication of Zavala's book, on the officially chosen date of March 21 of this year, has been informative and a potential bomb that should become a benchmark in the future. Indeed, in the Secret it is said verbatim "If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed."

 The question would be to know precisely the time "from which" the 69 weeks should begin to be counted. In the recent past some (including myself, with doubts) believed that this date would have been April 27, 2010, when the photograph of the Secret appeared on the Tradition in Action site. But in reality, it must be said that the Secret says that "this order is announced," and the question comes to mind whether that date would be that of the publication of the photograph of the Secret on a website with rather limited repercussions. Should it be taken as the starting point of the countdown to the terrible "prophesied" disaster? As I said, I believed then that it could be so.

 But, the passing of time revealed that this was not the case. Actually, one thing is the appearance of the photograph of the Secret on the Internet; another thing is to say "this order is announced." So now, we return to the same question: Could the starting point of the countdown be the publication of a book that has had more media reverberations than its mere appearance on the Internet? But does this suffice to say that the Secret has been announced?

 Of course, every day the Secret is having more repercussions in the media, as we can gather below. But is it enough to say that "the order has been announced?" (I think the word "order" could be a cryptic reference to Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks. In the translation of some Bibles at least, the word "order" is used.) In fact, in addition to the immediate publication in Amor de la Verdad of this news in the post "Confirmed: The authenticity of the Third Secret of Fatima" (three days after the publication of the book), it was also published previously in the blog of the well-known Vaticanist Marco Tosatti.



The Secret, Zavala's book and the interview with Slocker is also discussed in the blog Acta Apostaticae Sedis. There are references to the vaticanist Roberto de Mattei who, without denying the Secret posted in the blog of Tosatti, now authenticated, simply states, "I am not going to enter into the problem of the Third Secret. It seems to me that what we know is even more impressive." A nice way to shrug it off and speak in generalities, not daring to register the simple fact: The Secret has been authenticated by an eminent "handwriting expert." He also cites the words "Penance, penance, penance" in the Vatican Secret as if he were to continue to treasure the discredited Secret published by the Vatican in 2000 – for example, discredited by Socci in his book The Fourth Secret.

 I believe it is one more way to resist the facts and cling to theories that are very beautiful, but that perhaps have no basis in the facts.

 Nonetheless, since that date there have been articles published on the topic like those on Tradition in Action, especially the very important one written by the editor of that site that claims – in my opinion, successfully – to have deciphered the Secret and restored it to its original state by returning some words to their original position. Based on it, we endorsed that article in the post presenting what the author calls a deciphered reading of the Secret.

 Perhaps some may ask why we have these confusions and deciphered letters. These are the facts: A photograph of the possible Third Secret was published on the Internet, without knowing the source of who sent it and why he did so. Further, we must note something important that perhaps many are not aware of: The photograph had also been published a week before April 27 in Spanish on an American site that is clearly anti-Catholic, heretical, and perhaps atheist and gnostic, which published something perfectly blasphemous and heretical that in itself discredits the Catholic Faith.

In fact, this site titled Fatima Movement, which seems to be supported by Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, posted the following barbarous proposition: "The Virgin Mary is God and a Person of the Holy Trinity." But, the Secret cannot have been created by this site precisely because it is impossible for anyone to have made the handwriting of the Secret so perfectly that it could pass the rigorous test of an expert handwriting analysis like the one done in Spain recently.

 With this, the puzzle pieces fit together. My hypothesis – without proof, but plausible – is this: Someone anonymously sends the ALTERED Secret (moving around words with a technique similar to photoshop). The alteration raises skepticism in the reader with good faith. This Secret is also published on a traditionalist (but not sedevacantist) Catholic website, which is strongly critical of the current Roman See, widely spread in the USA. A few days before, it is also published, albeit altered, on a Masonic site that seeks to discredit the Catholic Faith by promoting that the Virgin Mary is God and a Person of the Holy Trinity (remember the Protestant saying "Catholics adore Mary").

 All this serves to discredit the real Secret and a true understanding of Fatima (before the publicized modernist understanding of the Vatican). With all this, in passing, the fake Vatican Secret of the year 2000 is reinforced – at a time when it was in question for its obvious failures.

 But the question is: Who has been the author of this somewhat Machiavellian operation? The answer, in my opinion, is this: The only one who could do it is one who was custodian of it in the Vatican. And he was also the one who has benefited from all this mess because his "theological declaration" guaranteed the false Secret published by the Vatican in the year 2000. The proof of the nine is to check if this person has been characterized in the past by a cunning and duplicity like this in yet other matters, in similar operations (Mass of 1962 to be recognized as extraordinary). Capisci? [Do you understand (that he is Ratzinger – NDR)?] Bingo!

 Moreover, no one could say that all the Vatican Council heads have hidden the Third Secret. He can truthfully say: "I have published it." Is this a conspiracy theory? This can only be said by those who are so blind that they do not believe in the cօռspιʀαcιҽs in our present world. Especially in the matter of Fatima, and for many reasons, as the readers of this blog well know.

 This being said, I go on to present the very interesting interview of Zavala with Begoña Slocker de Arce, who, as you know, was the handwriting analysis expert, who has definitively judged – supported by colleagues and eminent personalities in the field – that the hand that wrote this Third Secret is the same one that in 1941 wrote the first and second Secrets recorded in the Third Memoir of Fatima. That person is Lucía dos Santos.

 And if you do not like that this is a confirmed fact. Well, then, c'est a vous, it's up to you to explain the facts in a better way. It would not be honorable for you to just shrug it off and confine yourself to "despise what you do not know."


 
______________________



 
The Third Secret of Fatima:
 Interview with the Analyst Who Confirmed its Authenticity

 José María Zavala



She is one of the most renowned handwriting experts in Spain and abroad. Begoña Slocker de Arce, a consultant [forensic docuмent analyst] for Courts of Justice, has studied one of the most important docuмents in the History of the Church – the supposed unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima – in this year of 2017 that celebrates the 100^th year anniversary of the May 13 apparition.

 Her impeccable 24-page report, which is fully reproduced in my book The Best Kept Secret of Fatima, whose fourth edition the Grupo Planeta is already preparing for release in just one month, makes a surprising conclusion: Sister Lucia de Fatima wrote a docuмent, until now almost unknown [published here], in which the Virgin prophesies the apostasy in the Church starting from the very top, and the existence of a Pope under the control of Satan. Below follows an interview with Slocker de Arce:


Handwriting expert Begoña Slocker de Arce
Question: Did you have knowledge about the Fatima apparitions of Fatima that could have influenced you in preparing your report?

 Answer: Like anyone educated in a Catholic school, I knew about the apparition of the Virgin to the little shepherds, but had no other information that could have interested me over the years. That is why I was under no influence whatsoever in undertaking this work, whether in favor of its [the letter's] authenticity or against it. I warned you of this presupposition from the beginning and you agreed without putting conditions.

 Q. As a well-known handwriting expert both inside and outside of Spain, did you ever fear that your report on the unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima might in some way affect your untarnished reputation?

 A: When I learned that my analysis would be published in full, I had a moment of fear when I realized that it was going to be examined under magnifying glasses by experts of all kinds, coming under the judgment of professional colleagues. But, I also knew that, after having carried out my analysis rigorously and honestly, they [the other analysts] could add little to the arguments I set out in it. The data I give are correct regarding the study of a comparison. In fact, I have only received words of congratulation for my prudence based on comparative data.

 Q: How many years have you been practicing your profession? Where did you study and who were your best teachers? When and why did you decide to start your own graphology center?

 A: I have been practicing the profession of graphologist-handwriting expert for more than 25 years. My father, Luis Pérez Slocker, was a graphologist and handwriting expert since 1954; he was a student of Maite Ras, who introduced this science in Spain. It was my father who advised me to get my degree at the Spanish Society of Graphology under the teacher Mauricio Xandró, who died two years ago, the last of a generation of great teachers like Augusto Vels, Max Pulver (Switzerland), Rafael Shermann (Germany) and Matilde Ras, who introduced Graphology in Spain. I say Graphology, because the Handwriting Analysis is one branch of it. Let me add that in a handwriting analysis, graphology is not used. The Graphological Center was founded because, as the work increased along with the number of specialties in this science, I had to separate it by areas and, then, set out the different specialties and find qualified professionals for each one.

 Q: Can you name one of the most famous issues that has required your intervention as an expert?

 A: My professional secrecy does not permit to speak about things I have done. For me, each case is the most important and, once done, the only thing that matters to me is to be confident about what I did - either for the good or the bad - according to my professional ethics.

 Q: What made you finally decide to face the difficult challenge of verifying the authenticity of a docuмent of such importance?

 A: I had already participated with you in another of your books, in which you showed your respect for my work, not changing a comma of the report that I made for Las mentiras de ZP [The lies of ZP] on the personality of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, where I affirm that he does not lie, but that he believes in his own lies. This gave me confidence in you, because I knew that you would not manipulate my analysis. And indeed, it has not been done in this case: My analysis is exactly as I gave it to you.


José Maria Zavala showing his book
The Best Kept Secret of Fatima
Q: Why are you so sure that the docuмent of the unrevealed Third Secret of Fatima was written, like the first two secrets, by the same hand of Sister Lucia?

 A: So sure? I only know that my work is done with rigor, with all the knowledge I have placed at the service of the analysis. I think it is impossible to write two identical letters, since we have life, movement and this is what causes the writing of the same person to have certain differences when writing the same letter. We also have personal characteristics that come from our unconscious and that are impossible for another writer to reproduce. Speed is very important because it is very difficult to imitate the slant, the cohesion... These are characteristics that a counterfeiter cannot maintain in more than six consecutive lines because the unconscious part betrays him and the hand movement obeys the brain – not our intentions. The docuмent we have studied is a clear case where all these factors are positive, never with sufficient differences to doubt its authenticity.

 Q: Are there other renowned experts like you who support your conclusion? Who are they?

 A: After I finished working with my usual team, to which Lorena Gilaranz, an analyst for the courts of justice, belongs, I went to two of the most prestigious experts, my colleagues, who approved it. I also received the support of the Spanish Society of Graphology.

 Q: Did it take you many hours to produce your large report? What process was followed? Did it require anyone's help?

 A: The analysis was arduous, since we were working with letters from another time. We examined each one of them to recognize the changes in both docuмents. We worked on the analysis day and night until it was delivered, making it clear that the result was not influenced by my reputation or any other area. As I say in the report, other types of tests could be made on the originals [if they were known], which in my opinion would only reinforce what I have presented following my knowledge and understanding.

it looked like a gray cement fortress

Was Sister Lucia familiar with cement when this letter was allegedly written? Was cement a building material she would be in knowledge of?

a three dollar bill.

Guys, look at the margins.  Notice that each paragraph is indented on a straight parallel line and that all the lines of text are perfectly straight.  You ain't going to sell me in twenty zillion bijillion years that that is not a computer printout.  Nobody on earth writes that perfectly unless they are being guided by the hand of an angel.

The text is laughable.  It shows no continuity with the previous parts of the secret.  The words "In Portugal..." are missing, as are the words "in the end My Immaculate Heart will Triumph".

Now, let's carpet bomb this fakery line by line...


       "Now I am going to reveal the third fragment of the secret; This part is the apostasy in the Church! "
The original secret was not divided into parts.  If this line was logical, then, after the vision of hell Our Lady would have said "And now I am going to show you the second part of the secret..."  The dividing of the secret into parts was done somewhat arbitrarily by the postulators of Fatima.  It only became part of the Fatima nomenclature in the mid-'50's.

         "Our Lady showed us a Church, but this was a Church of hell, and an individual who I describe as the 'holy Father' leading a multitude that was praising the devil, but there was a difference from a true holy Father, the gaze, this one had the gaze of evil."
While I agree that Pope Frantic and Pope Benedict both have "the gaze of evil", I find it hard for Our Lady to indicate that this "holy father" was leading a multitude in praising the devil.  I would think Our Lady would simply state something similar to what she said at La Salette: "Rome has lost the Faith and this is Antichrist..."  The sentence is too wordy for a Fatima event.  Notice that the material chastisement is cover by the simple phrase: "Various nations will be annihilated..."

          "Then we saw the same Pope entering a Church, after some moments, but 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."
This sentence is way too wordy and also redundant.  It adds nothing to the previous sentence.  This is most unlike the previous part of the secret that we empirically know.

          "Next, we raised our eyes to Our Lady who said to us: You saw the apostasy in the Church."
I suppose the bad grammar may be the translator's fault.  But once again this sentence is redundant.  It adds nothing to the narrative.  If the "holy father" is praising the devil in "the church of hell" we can be pretty darned sure we are seeing apostasy. ;D

          "Because the dogma of the faith is not conserved in Rome, its authority will be removed and delivered to Fatima. The cathedra [or chair] of Rome will be destroyed and a new one built in Fatima."
Oh boy is this off the wall.  .  Now we have Our Lady giving either a prophecy for a pope to fulfill or orders in lieu of a vacant chair of Peter. This is getting as silly as the false secret of La Salette, where Our lady describes the birth of Antichrist.  Some expletives from Dr McCoy might be apropos here, but I'll refrain. 

          "In the kingdom of John Paul II the cornerstone of Peter's tomb will be removed and transferred to Fatima." 

          "This letter can be opened by the holy Father, but it must be announced after Pius XII and before 1960."
Now we are way into sillyland.  These lines are obviously playing off the statement of WW2 breaking out in the reign of Pius XI.  Why does it have to be announced after Pius XII??  Is that because Pius XII was somehow "good pope" and his successors "bad popes"??  PLEASE don't get me started on that one.  For all you Pius XII fans out there, just two tidbits... Fr Bea was this man's spiritual director for years, and Pius XII actually painted this picture of Bishop Carroll and G Washington holding hands in building the USA...  and I could go on and on as to how this liberal was tearing Holy Mother Church apart, especially from 1947 on, while Good Pope John was in many ways an improvement... actually putting Valtorta on the index was most welcome at the time...
      I will agree that Sr Lucia saw something special about 1960.  One can definitely see a difference in Hollywood productions from 1959 to 1961, to say nothing of what was happening to "music". 

If 69 weeks after this order is announced, Rome continues its abomination, the city will be destroyed.
I suppose Romans would be best off heading for the hills in any case, as should anybody in any metropolitan area on the face of the earth.  When the SHTF the average Joe is going to have the life expectancy of Foghorn Leghorn (the Rooster) surrounded by a pack of timber wolves.

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

Okay, just for kicks, here is Daniel:

24]Seventy weeks are shortened upon thy people, and upon thy holy city, that transgression may be finished, and sin may have an end, and iniquity may be abolished; and everlasting justice may be brought; and vision and prophecy may be fulfilled; and the saint of saints may be anointed. [25] Know thou therefore, and take notice: that from the going forth of the word, to build up Jerusalem again, unto Christ the prince, there shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks: and the street shall be built again, and the walls in straitness of times.

Fans of Daniel know that this prophecy refers to King Cyrus of Persia conquering Babylon and allowing the Jews to return to Palestine.  The weeks are weeks of years (7 years per week)  and if you count across 70 weeks of years you come up with- bingo!- 490 years from the reign of King Cyrus to the birth of Christ.  Our hero probably wanted these words of Daniel:

[11] And it was magnified even to the prince of the strength: and it took away from him the continual sacrifice, and cast down the place of his sanctuary. [12] And strength was given him against the continual sacrifice, because of sins: and truth shall be cast down on the ground, and he shall do and shall prosper.

This prophecy refers to the Antichrist (or false prophet aka Pope Frantic- could be) having power to suppress the Latin Mass.  And we sure as shooting are seeing "truth cast down to the ground",  just consider Donald Duck's campaign and his "presidency".  And just consider some of the "encyclicals" of Pope Frantic.

Now, Matthew:

[42] Jesus saith to them: Have you never read in the Scriptures: The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner? By the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes. [43] Therefore I say to you, that the kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding the fruits thereof. [44] And whosoever shall fall on this stone, shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it shall grind him to powder.

This does not refer to the end times, but refers to the Covenant being transferred from the Jews to St Peter and the Apostles.

This verse would be more appropriate:

"When therefore you shall see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place: he that readeth let him understand."
[Matthew 24:15]