I assume you are refering to these statements issued by the Vatican.
religion-cults.com/fatima/pope.htm
"At this point, Archbishop Bertone presented two envelopes to her: the first containing the second, which held the third part of the “secret” of Fatima. Immediately, touching it with her fingers, she said: “This is my letter”, and then while reading it: “This is my writing”."
Indeed!
But did she confirm that the writing in this letter was the same text as the 4 notebook pages (not a letter) released as the “full” text of the Third Secret?
No!
You have to be very careful with Vatican statements on Fatima, you won’t find direct lies but the truth may have been economised.
In another (or the same) interview, Cardinal Bertone said that Lucia agreed totally with the Vatican Document “The Message of Fatima” which attempted an interpretation of the Third Secret. This same document implied that Lucia had imagined it all and Sr Lucia was agreeing with the position of the only “expert” named in the document - one Fr Dhanis, a long time opponent of the message.
Somehow that doesn’t ring true at all!
If you want to see a real gem in obfuscation try this from the Vatican’s “The Message of Fatima”.
“There is only one manuscript, which is here reproduced photostatically.”
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000626_message-fatima_en.html
Yep that’s right, there was only one manuscript reproduced photostatically in the vatican document.
But is there another not produced photostatically? Not the pages from her notebook (which the letter was enclosed in when handed over) The actual
letter that contained the words of Our Lady - the continuation of “In Portugal the dogma of faith will always be preserved etc”.
See what I mean.
There is a kind of double-speak going on.
Or try this one from the Bertone interview…
"As regards the passage about the Bishop dressed in white, that is, the Holy Father—as the children immediately realized during the “vision”—who is struck dead and falls to the ground, Sister Lucia was in full agreement with the Pope’s claim that “it was a mother’s hand that guided the bullet’s path and in his throes the Pope halted at the threshold of death”"
We are led here to believe that Lucia is confirming that the vision is that of the assasination attempt, but Lucia is confirming no such thing.
It is obvious what is going on here just from this.
And that’s the way any interview with Sr Lucia is spun since 1960. Her statements are always deprived of context.
As to your point about 1960…
Sister Lucia replied: “(a) It was not Our Lady. I fixed the date because I had the intuition that before 1960 it would not be understood, but that only later would it be understood. Now it can be better understood. (b)I wrote down what I saw; however it was not for me to interpret it, but for the Pope.
(a) and (b) were added by me. We have no way of telling if Sr Lucia followed (a) with (b) or if some editing has been carried out because the interview was not recorded in any manner (no context for her answers). An attempt to link what Lucia “saw” (the vision) with the envelope that should be opened in 1960 (the words).
1960 is important, Sr Lucia said “now it can be better understood”.
Oh yeah! So well understood that the Vatican can only “attempt” an interpretation and anyway she imagined it.
She is not talking about the vision being better understood, because it still isn’t. She is talking about the explanation of the vision, the words of Our Lady written in a letter on a single sheet of paper and placed in an envelope.
Go figure…
