CathInfo.com

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.