Here is the supposed text of the Third Secret of Fatima as released by the Vatican in 2000. It’s in the form of a letter which Sister Lucia delivered to her bishop in 1944, and there is a lot of evidence that this text is incomplete, most especially because, unlike the other two secrets, it contains no words attributed directly to the BVM (if this is news to you, you need to research it):
“After the two parts which I have already explained, at the left of Our Lady and a little above, we saw an Angel with a flaming sword in his left hand; flashing, it gave out flames that looked as though they would set the world on fire; but they died out in contact with the splendour that Our Lady radiated towards him from her right hand: pointing to the earth with his right hand, the Angel cried out in a loud voice: ‘Penance, Penance, Penance!’. And we saw in an immense light that is God: ‘something similar to how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it’ a Bishop dressed in White ‘we had the impression that it was the Holy Father’. Other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious going up a steep mountain, at the top of which there was a big Cross of rough-hewn trunks as of a cork-tree with the bark; before reaching there the Holy Father passed through a big city half in ruins and half trembling with halting step, afflicted with pain and sorrow, he prayed for the souls of the corpses he met on his way; having reached the top of the mountain, on his knees at the foot of the big Cross he was killed by a group of soldiers who fired bullets and arrows at him, and in the same way there died one after another the other Bishops, Priests, men and women Religious, and various lay people of different ranks and positions. Beneath the two arms of the Cross there were two Angels each with a crystal aspersorium in his hand, in which they gathered up the blood of the Martyrs and with it sprinkled the souls that were making their way to God.”
The “we had the impression” part has intrigued everyone for years. The current papal situation certainly is interesting, isn’t it?
But what about that “how people appear in a mirror when they pass in front of it” part? What does that even mean? People just appear as they appear, don’t they?
If you attended the Extraordinary Form this morning, you heard this in the Epistle:
But be doers of the word, and not merely hearers who deceive themselves. For if any are hearers of the word and not doers, they are like those who look at themselves in a mirror; for they look at themselves and, on going away, immediately forget what they were like. But those who look into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and persevere, being not hearers who forget but doers who act—they will be blessed in their doing. James 1:22-25 (NRSVCE)
“Like those who look at themselves in a mirror…and going away, immediately forget what they were like.” How are we supposed to interpret this? Let’s try a few other translations:
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror; for he observes himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But he who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer that forgets but a doer that acts, he shall be blessed in his doing. (RSVCE)
But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if a man be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he shall be compared to a man beholding his own countenance in a glass. For he beheld himself, and went his way, and presently forgot what manner of man he was. But he that hath looked into the perfect law of liberty, and hath continued therein, not becoming a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work; this man shall be blessed in his deed. (DRB)
Haydock renders it this way:
“The sense is, that it is not enough for a man to examine and look into his interior, and the state of his conscience in a negligent and superficial manner, no more than one that goes to a looking-glass, but does not take care to take away the dirt or spots which he might discover.”
I’m going to leave it at that. But first, do you remember last year when those articles were published by Maike Hickson in discussion with Fr. Dollinger, where Benedict confirmed that the entire Third Secret indeed was NOT published in 2000, thus contradicting his own prior testimony? HERE And then the Vatican with lightning speed issued a statement attributed to Benedict, but in language so obviously unlike something he might say:
“Pope emeritus Benedict XVI declares “never to have spoken with Professor Dollinger about Fatima”, clearly affirming that the remarks attributed to Professor Dollinger on the matter “are pure inventions, absolutely untrue”, and he confirms decisively that “the publication of the Third Secret of Fatima is complete”.” HERE
Today is the one year anniversary of that denial.
I wonder when Francis opened and read the Third Secret, the full version, what effect it had on his “plans”.