Not really.
One has to wonder why Zenit and the Vatican have spent as much or more time nervously telling us the entire third secret has been revealed and that Russia was really consecrated (yet everyone just happened to miss it) than they have mourning Sister Lucia.
I read the what we've been told is the third secret. What I don't understand is why on God's earth would what they are telling us is the "third secret" be kept under wraps for so long?
IOW, in order for Rome to keep the third from being revealed for so long it must have been something so controversal or shocking that it just couldn't be released (in their view). There was nothing I read in their version of the "third secret" that would cause such a reaction. There is nothing scandalous, controversial or horrifying in it. It's for the most part innocuous.
After all according to our Church, our Lady was present at Fatima. She told the Lucia that it was to be released in 1960, Rome refused.
Would someone please point out to me what it is in the "third secret" presented to us that would cause it to be kept hidden for decades?
It just doesn't make any sense at all.
Your post poses a most intelligent question: why keep the secret hidden, when the released text in 2000 was very tame & innocous.
At the time it was released I recall speaking to those of my mother's and even gradnmother's generation, who would surely have remembered the build up of anticipation prior to 1960. Their reaction was sort of:..."so that's it? Hardly seemed worth hiding it for 40 years". This was the reaction of persons who were both Catholic & non- Catholic.
One clue as to the true nature, and total content of the real third secret is that Fatima was essentially an "either/or proposition". Due to the action ( or should I say inaction) of Pope John XXII, we are living with the consequences of "or". For 45 years.
When I was a little kid (in the late 50s), the rumor was that each Pope who saw the third secret fainted dead away with shock.
There is an answer. Nothing. But the real secret has things in it that the Vatican has been so afraid of that they have made everyone who has read the real version take an oath that they will not make it public. I quote a priest who has spent his life studying this topic.
In order to be worth keeping quiet, the message would logically have to be self-incriminating for the Vatican. Pope John XXIII read it an pronounced that "this is not for our pontificate." Why not? How about this: "There will be a council of the Church which will spread evil in the world." Well, that would have made John less enthusiastic about his council whose very existence was based on his enthusiasm, no? And would this not have been "more clear" in 1960?
Or this one: "There will be changes to the Mass that all Catholics should reject." Why would any of the post-concilar popes want THAT to be revealed?
Furthermore, would these both not have been rather obvious by now, the time of Sister Lucy's death?
May the good Lord rest her soul in peace. And may he please continue to have mercy on us left behind!