Skip to comments.The Third Secret (of Fatima) - Did The Pope Lie?
Posted on 05/10/2010 12:52:32 PM PDT by NYer
Get ready for conspiracy season, opening day is almost here.
Prepare thyself for an onslaught of information, speculation, and defamation over the next few weeks as the Pope prepares to visit Fatima this month.
Speculation about the contents of the famous third secret of Fatima had become such a cottage industry among among some Catholics that they were determined not to let a little thing like the secret being revealed in the year 2000 get in their way. If you have a successful business model, you stick with it I suppose.
It is fair to say that the Pope’s visit to Fatima will, of course, make the famous secret once again a hot topic as it is intensely interesting. However, Antonio Socci’s book “The Fourth Secret” being recently translated into English will only add fuel to the fire.
Socci alleges that there were two third secrets of Fatima. One, the released description of the vision of the Bishop in white and another that followed after the phrase “In Portugal the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.”
I am obviously in the camp that believes the Pope and Sr. Lucia when they said that all was released. With that said, I think some observers have raised reasonable questions about some apparent discrepancies surrounding previous statements about the secret.
But the Vatican is in a catch-22 here. In order to quiet the conspiracy theorists, they could address some of the alleged discrepancies and put them to rest once and for all. But, and this is a big but, they simply cannot do that. To even address the questions would turn the conspiracy cottage industry into a huge growth sector overnight.
Every word or clarification issued would be dissected and dissected again opening up even more inconsistencies and discrepancies resulting in the world’s first perpetual motion conspiracy machine. So the Vatican continues to do what it must, it stays silent.
So understanding all this, a reasonable man is left to decide. Did the Pope lie? Did Sr. Lucia lie?
You know where I stand. What say you?
Yee ha! LOL
Amen!!! I suspect the Boss is going to to be seriously p-O'd as we didn't look out for the "least amongst you".
Try feeding said link into the Wayback Machine Internet Archive, and see what you get. Better yet, I'm feeling charitable and have done your homework for you. The results show 31 matches dating from September 1999 through October 2006. Pick any one, and click on it. Then match the archived webpage to this post and this post of mine, made back on May 10/11th, 2007 - three years ago to the day.
For my next trick, if you'd like, I can post a survey of all the Catholic FReepers who have accused me of lying about the quote/URL. If you'd like, I can put your name at the top.
>>If you’d like, I can put your name at the top.<<
Why would you do that? I put the facts of the search up and asked for a live link.
Where exactly did I accuse you of lying?
Oh, and btw, I’ve learned here in FR, that if you don’t want people to question your quotes, put a link (make sure it works) the first time.
If someone can click without having to ask for a link, there is no doubt.
I’ve seen it happen here often. People doubt. It’s part of nature.
Remind me to chastise the people at ZENIT for disobeying a direct order, by removing a webpage that existed from 1998 until May 2007. Of course, it's all my fault that it's now gone at ZENIT. The buck stops here. It's a good thing that I had the foresight to set up that nice Wayback project back in 1996.
>>Remind me to chastise the people at ZENIT <<
Well, actually, it’s your responsibility to give a live link. That’s YOUR homework, not anyone else’s.
It was very nice of you to link the Wayback site. It gave your quote some credibility. However if you had checked that
1. you gave a reference for that quote
2. the link worked
you wouldn’t have had to do that extra work.
Sheesh - remind me to increase the funding on my time machine project(s). It's nice to know it's my responsibility to verify if the valid links I'm placing in my posts today will continue to work three years in the future - so that I'll know whether to place them in my posts today.
It was very nice of you to link the Wayback site. It gave your quote some credibility.
It was nice of you to notice. It gives your complaint some credibility.
I am not a graphics expert, but I have seen a handwriting specialist's analysis that the Vatican's 2000 "Third Secret" was not written in Sister Lucia's handwriting.
I should qualify that as the Sister Lucia who was one of the three shepherd visionaries -- since there are several reports that the Vatican also created a doppleganger of Sister Lucia to pose for photos with Pope John Paul II and to "verify" the Vatican's "Third Secret."
>>I’m placing in my posts today will continue to work three years in the future - <<
It was the quote with NO link that was questioned. If one can’t find a workable link for the quote, it loses credibility. FReepers question quotes that don’t have live links.
>>It gives your complaint some credibility.<<
My QUESTION (not complaint), was for a reference to your quote. Neither Bing nor Google gave it. You looked up YOUR quote, which you should have done in the first place and gave the reference.
I’m not sure what the tizzy is about, but have at it.