I struggle with Third Secret interpretation

  • Thread starter Thread starter AlexShmatko
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Things like how we dress might seem less important than earthshaking geopolitical events. But how I dress is something I can control to a great extent, whereas I can’t control world events. Fatima is mainly about personal conversion, even to the point of avoiding certain fashions. (Odd how little attention this gets nowadays, people are fixated on spectacular stuff).

Likewise, making the First Saturdays is something I can do - or not do, in most cases. Daily rosary is something I can do - or not do.
 
What good is a prophecy that it’s impossible to tell if it has already been fulfilled or impossible to know what it would take to fulfill it?
 
Last edited:
AlexShmatko said:
The secret was officially interpreted by Catholic Church as a prophecy of Pope John Paul II assassination attempt. Frankly speaking, the assassination attempt that took place really seems like unimportant occasion to me…

I believe that there was a secret that they either feared or didn’t want to reveal.
Click to expand...
There is no “official interpretation.” Pope John Paul II clearly believed that the 3rd Secret referred to his shooting, but that is just his opinion. If you don’t think that the shooting was a big deal, that is just your opinion.

Accusing Pope John Paul II and then Cardinal Ratzinger of lying about the 3rd Secret is very grave matter.
 
The Third Secret hasn’t been fulfilled or released(in full) yet. We know this by the distinction with what happened to JPII and the events of the released secret, the speculations of Fr. Gabriele Amorth, along with the fact that the Church disobeyed the order of the Blessed Mother to release it before 1960.
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
The Third Secret hasn’t been fulfilled or released(in full) yet. We know this by the distinction with what happened to JPII and the events of the released secret, the speculations of Fr. Gabriele Amorth, along with the fact that the Church disobeyed the order of the Blessed Mother to release it before 1960.
Click to expand...
Church disobeyed?

The Church does not answer to any private revelation. Even if approved. The Church is the authority on earth and is subject to nothing but divine law and public revelation.

This is where i feel private revelations are taken too far. No one can demand the Church release some alleged 20th century secret on pain of obedience and I suspect our Lady knows that.

Would that Catholics spend their time and energy on Scripture and the Catechism than on Fatima.
 
Last edited:
porthos11 said:
Church disobeyed?

The Church does not answer to any private revelation. Even if approved. The Church is the authority on earth and is subject to nothing but divine law and public revelation.

This is where i feel private revelations are taken too far. No one can demand the Church release some alleged 20th century secret on pain of obedience and I suspect our Lady knows that.

Would that Catholics spend their time and energy on Scripture and the Catechism than on Fatima.
Click to expand...
This should be pinned to the top of every post about the Third Secret.
 
Just because you don’t believe in a merit doesn’t negate the fact that the Church ignored the order of the Blessed Virgin. You can not deny this!
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
Just because you don’t believe in a merit doesn’t negate the fact that the Church ignored the order of the Blessed Virgin. You can not deny this!
Click to expand...
And what I’m saying is that your premise is questionable.

The Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and derives her authority from Christ alone. Scripture and Magisterium are clear that the governing and teaching authority of the Church rests with the Pope and the Bishops in communion with the Holy See, which in turn is judged by no one.

Our Lady is the Queen of Heaven and Earth, but she holds no authority over the Church on earth. The supreme authority on earth is the Pope. That our Lady “ordered” or “bound” the Church to do something is overreaching the Church’s hierarchical constitutions. Fatima would not even be deemed “worthy of belief” if not for the authority of the Church. This alone shows that the Church’s authority trumps ANYTHING within a private revelation. It is impossible for Fatima, or any other private revelation, to bind the Church.

Therefore, if one is to state that our Lady bound the Church to “obey” her apparition at Fatima, then I call that claim into question as contrary to the Catholic faith.

The Church has persevered for over 2000 years preaching the same things claimed at Fatima: repentance and penance. We do not need some alleged secret, third, or no to live the Gospel.

Would that Catholics spend their time and energy on Scripture and the Catechism than on Fatima.
 
I’ve heard that the city the pope walks through is Rome (the Vatican, specifically). The prophecy clearly states that the Pope dies. It doesn’t say he almost died.

It’s my understanding that Marian prophecies and the like are always interpreted formally, that is, exactly as stated. Therefore if the prophecy states that the pope is killed, after walking through a city (singular) then we can’t assume it must mean an unsuccessful attempt was made on the pope’s life, or that the city was a metaphor for post-WW2 devastation.

Besides, Our Lady prophesied that if her requests had gone unheeded Russia would spread her errors. And indeed she has. Not just by means of economic communism, although that’s certainly all over the world, but also via feminism, and the destruction of the domestic family. All are Russian errors.
 
Last edited:
PiusOfTheCross said:
Just because you don’t believe in a merit doesn’t negate the fact that the Church ignored the order of the Blessed Virgin. You can not deny this!
Click to expand...
Wasn’t the order you speak of part of someone’s private revelation?

The Church isn’t obligated to act in accordance to what is claimed as part of someones private revelation.
 
The Third Secret had much symbolism, much like the Book of Revelation.

Pope John Paul II himself had to ask Lucia, if the assassination attempt on him, was part of the secret,…Lucia confirmed that it was.

The problem I have with Fatima, is that much of what we hear about it, came from Lucia in her adult life as a nun, not in the apparitions themselves.

It’s also know that she suffered severe scrupulosity.

I stick with the visions themselves, but I’m still skeptical, but keep an open mind and heart to it all.

Jim
 
The premise isn’t questionable. All I’ve stated is that the Church has denied the order of the Blessed Virgin in this private revelation. It is simple logic: Our Lady said, yes, in a private revelation, that the secret was to be released before 1960. Therefore, the Church did not follow the will of the particular action. This doesn’t contradict anything about the Infallibility of the Church, or her Magisterium. I don’t see why some angry spirit is uproaring you in such a way.
 
Apparently, not sure how true this is, but padre pio said the third secret was about a false church.
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
The premise isn’t questionable. All I’ve stated is that the Church has denied the order of the Blessed Virgin in this private revelation. It is simple logic: Our Lady said, yes, in a private revelation, that the secret was to be released before 1960. Therefore, the Church did not follow the will of the particular action. This doesn’t contradict anything about the Infallibility of the Church, or her Magisterium. I don’t see why some angry spirit is uproaring you in such a way.
Click to expand...
No one’s talking about infallibility, but authority.

You refer to an “order” of the Blessed Virgin to the Church. That’s not how the Church works. The Church IS the authority, not our Lady. It’s the claims going around saying she’s “ordering” the Church to do this or do that as if the Church is bound to obey apparitions. The Church derives her authority from Christ, and the notion that the Church has to “obey” our Lady does not jive with what the Church teaches about herself. The Church does not have to do ANYTHING on the word of a private revelation. So if it’s coming across as an “order” that the Church has to obey, I question it, be it as expressed by certain adherents, or even the message itself if primary sources bear it out. However, in most cases, it’s the former. Adherents interpret it as such, and therefore express it as such, when in all likelihood, the original apparition never gave it as an “order” that binds the Church to obedience.

And don’t go around looking for angry spirits. This is all me. I say all this because I will always hold the Church above any apparition any day. Implying that I’m somehow associated, even by proximity, by a demon is something not even remotely close to charitable.
 
Last edited:
I’m skeptical about a lot of things Padre Pio is suppose to have said.

Jim
 
I’m not sure where the talk of angry spirits is coming from. However, when you state, “Our Lady said …” you are making an presumption that is not binding on anyone to believe. One can be a faithful Catholic and not believe that Mary even appeared at Fatima, much less be bound by what the children reported she said.
The Church is certainly not bound to follow the dictates of a private revelation at all, and cannot be said to be “disobeying” anything by not releasing the secret.
 
PiusOfTheCross said:
Our Lady said, yes, in a private revelation, that the secret was to be released before 1960. Therefore, the Church did not follow the will of the particular action. This doesn’t contradict anything about the Infallibility of the Church, or her Magisterium.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does say something about the Magesterium. You’re repeated insistence that the Church “disobeyed an order” from a private revelation says that you put more stock in a private revelation than in the Church and her authority. And that, frankly, is sad.
 
Please read what I’ve stated already. The Church does not HAVE to follow the instructions of a private revelation. I never said that. Please watch your statements. Nevertheless, the Church did ignore the orders of the Blessed Virgin whether they were true or not. Are you capable of understanding this?
 
Inferring and calumny are grave moral errors, good sir! I’m not saying anything about the Magisterium of the Church, I’m just saying they ignored an order of Mary from a private revelation. I can’t see why you’re still arguing. Say, in the year 2020, a mystic says that Mary ordered a jubilee year, and the Pope does not listen. This says nothing about the authority of the Church or her Magisterium, whether the order was true or not. Just because the Church didn’t ‘follow an order’ doesn’t make it bad. Please understand this.
 
I didn’t say anything about the Church being bound to follow the orders of private revelations. Please watch your statements!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top