| Home - Latest News | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Testimonies | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos | Videos |

Fr. Gruner and the forged "Third Secret"


"How I warned and warned that satan would enter into the highest realms of the hierarchy in Rome. The Third Secret, My child, is that satan would enter into My Son's Church."  - Our Lady, May 13, 1978



I must thank Our Lady of the Roses and Veronica herself, for giving to the world such a marvelous gift to the Catholic Church and the world. Regarding the REAL Third Secret of Fatima, I have followed the directions and guidance offered by Our Lady of the Roses as best as I could.  

Our information is only as good as our source. My starting point is Our Lady of the Roses, who has even corrected the Fatima experts on errors they have made regarding the Third Secret of Fatima.


Personal meeting with Fr. Gruner

I want to start off by saying how much Fr. Nicholas Gruner and his magazine The Fatima Crusader have helped me grow in my Catholic faith over the years. He was a marvelous holy priest, a hero fighting for the Catholic Church and for that I will always be grateful.

That being said, I believe I am compelled to tell the truth on a very important matter. 

After the Vatican released what they called the "Third Secret" on June 26, 2000, TLDM did an exposé and report on this document which, in the professional opinion of Speckin Forensic Labs, was not the writing of Sister Lucy. 

At that time, I called the Fatima Center in Canada and requested a meeting with Fr. Gruner, which was agreed to. I met with Fr. Gruner in the late summer of 2000 and hand-delivered this report to him, which included a critique of the text, a critique of the Vatican commentary, Speckin Forensic Labs' conclusion that it was a forgery, TLDM's analysis of the difference in handwriting styles, as well as several Directives from Heaven on the topic of the Third Secret of Fatima (#129, #130, #131, #132, and #133). 

I showed Fr. Gruner and Fr. Paul Kramer that the handwriting style of Sister Lucy over a 62-year period had been remarkably similar, but when compared to the handwriting in the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document "Third Secret" supposedly written by Sister Lucy, it was entirely different. 

Also, I told both of them that Our Lady of the Roses had revealed the subject of the REAL Third Secret of Fatima: "How I warned and warned that satan would enter into the highest realms of the hierarchy in Rome. The Third Secret, My child, is that satan would enter into My Son's Church." (Our Lady of the Roses, May 13, 1978; listen) 

Fr. Kramer seemed especially astonished at what I was telling them.  Fr. Gruner, on his own, suggested to me that perhaps the Vatican's June 26, 2000 "Third Secret" had been computer-generated. I gave him my opinion that this was not likely, as the letters in this document (Vatican's June 26, 2000 "Third Secret") seemed to be dissimilar enough to rule out computer generation. 

So to be clear: Even before I talked with him, Fr. Gruner was not sold on the idea that the Vatican's June 26, 2000 "Third Secret" document was authentic. He now had before him a professional opinion, a forensic expert (Robert Kullman) who had examined the questionable June 26, 2000 document vs. Sister Lucy's known handwriting samples, and stated it was not Sister Lucy's handwriting: "it is my opinion, based on the documents examined, that the Questioned Document 'Third Secret' can not be identified with the purported known writings of Sister Lucy." 

I also pointed out to him the REAL Third Secret was the words of Our Lady, not a vision. Furthermore, it was only Jacinta of the three Fatima seers who had visions about the Third Secret, and this on a later date, not during the Fatima apparitions. Sister Lucy recounted one of Jacinta's visions in her Memoirs, a vision of a suffering Pope, and records Jacinta's question to Lucy: "Is he the one I saw weeping, the one Our Lady told us about in the Secret?" Lucy replied, "Yes, he is." 

If the REAL Third Secret was a vision, Jacinta would have said "shown us" instead of "told us". 

A request denied

I then made a request of Fr. Gruner, that if he had additional writing samples of Sister Lucy that he would make copies for me, so that I might add to the authentic Sister Lucy handwriting samples for the purpose of future investigation and study. He was kind enough to show me an extensive collection of letters from Sister Lucy. 

But no help in this area was forthcoming, much to my disappointment and dismay.  

I at least hoped that in the coming months, Fr. Gruner and his apostolate would make their own professional examination of the handwriting styles and expose this grave forgery to the entire world. 

I waited, but again, in vain. 

May 31, 2007: The evidence needed to put the final nail in the coffin of this forgery

Years later, with the public presentation of the Third Secret envelopes on Italian national TV by Cardinal Bertone (May 31, 2007 Porta a Porta TV telecast), TLDM had the most critical evidence and final nail in the coffin against the June 26, 2000 "Third Secret" forgery charade. There, on the Third Secret envelopes, was Sister Lucy's characteristic print-style capital "S." But wait! The "Third Secret" presented by the Vatican had an entirely different handwriting than the envelopes that enclosed it!  

Every single capital "S" in the Vatican's alleged "Third Secret" contains a cursive-style capital "S." Every single capital "S" written on the Third Secret envelopes displayed on Italian TV (and the 62 years of handwriting samples TLDM presented as evidence of Sister Lucy's authentic handwriting) contains a print-style capital "S." 

Surely, Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center would now see it was a forgery. As Fr. Gruner had so often stated, "there is no argument against a fact." The forgery was clear. The crime was clear.  

That didn't happen either (or at least, they didn't publicly admit to this). My questions started to multiple. Why the silence on this plainly visible forgery?


Fr. Gruner previously alerted people that a false Sister Lucy was making the rounds in public 

I want to make a digression here, to explain why I was so perplexed by Fr. Gruner's failure to expose the June 26, 2000 forgery put out by the Vatican and his refusal to help expose this forgery.  

First, It was Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center who had, for years, drawn attention to the systematic coverup by the Vatican of the authentic Fatima message. Their Chronology of a Coverup gives a timeline of all this. 

Second, it was Fr. Gruner who drew attention to forgeries falsely attributed to Sister Lucy in the past, including a November 8, 1989 computer-generated letter that was referenced in the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document (but Sister Lucy didn't know how to type). Again, this is discussed by Fr. Gruner himself and included in their Chronology of a Coverup: 

August 1989 – November 1989 – Computer-generated and typewritten notes and letters supposedly signed by Sister Lucy suddenly appear, flatly contradicting all prior statements she has made for more than 60 years about the Consecration. These notes contain factual errors Sister Lucy could not have made (e.g. the false statement that Pope Paul VI consecrated the world to the Immaculate Heart during his 1967 visit to Fatima) and phraseology she had never used before. Until now, “Sister Lucy” has never conducted correspondence with typewriters or word processors, and she still continues to write everything else, including her lengthy memoirs, by hand. 

Third, it was Fr. Gruner himself, in a video interview, who acknowledged the possibility that a fake Sister Lucy was being used to promote a false narrative of the Fatima message. Issue #44 of the Fatima Crusader includes the article, "A False Sister Lucy Substituted for the True?" Also, Christopher Ferrara's article, "A New Fatima for a New Church", highlights numerous Vatican deceptions regarding Fatima and evidence that the Fatima message was being deliberately falsified to fit in with a modern church.  

Christopher Ferrara also wrote this in False Friends of Fatima: 

"What sort of 'Sister Lucy' was it, then, who could look upon the awful developments in Russia and the world since 1984 and see in them the fulfillment of the promises of Our Lady of Fatima? It was a Sister Lucy we had never known; a Modernist Sister Lucy whose strange new words made a mockery of everything she had said before. It was a Sister Lucy sent to give us a New Fatima for the New Church the Modernists would have us believe emerged like a butterfly from a chrysalis at the Second Vatican Council. A New Fatima which heralds neither conversion nor triumph, but a pathetic accommodation to the worldly wisdom of a dying world: 'People now have an individual choice to remain as they are or convert.' A conversion of Russia without conversion to the Catholic Faith. What an insult to Our Lady of Fatima. And what an infinite insult to Him who sent Her." (False Friends of Fatima, p. 78, emphasis mine) 

Additionally, several websites have also collected photos of Sister Lucy and her impostor, as well as the measureable differences between the facial features of Sister Lucy and her impostor. The images are convincing and shocking.  

Do you really think an impostor Sister Lucy was going to endorse a genuine Third Secret? Of course not. 

All this deception was the prelude to the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document alleging to be the "Third Secret" of Fatima. With the Vatican's proven track record of deception surrounding the Fatima message and even using an impostor Sister Lucy to spread disinformation (propaganda), would not any reasonable person view further Vatican statements regarding Fatima with suspicion and a critical eye? 

Fr. Gruner had always proven to be a great champion of truth for Fatima and exposed the lies and coverups by the Vatican. I was expecting Fr. Gruner to keep fighting on with this latest June 26, 2000 Vatican deception and forgery. 

But something changed. What was it? 


Why did the Fatima Center take the route they did? 

The fact that Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center took this route points to some sort of cognitive dissonance. Everything written by Fatima witnesses and experts, in addition to the Fatima Center's own publications, are at odds with their current position that the Vatican's June 26, 2000 "Third Secret" document is not a forgery. 

So why did they take this route? Perhaps because the only alternative was to say that the highest realms of the Catholic hierarchy in the Vatican put together a forgery and, in the name of the Church, disseminated this forgery throughout the world. The two-document theory provides a pretext to detour around this horrible, but factual conclusion. But this horrible conclusion is entirely logical and consistent with these messages: 

Our Lady of the Roses (the Bayside apparitions) and the REAL Third Secret of Fatima. 

So I'd like to lay out a possible scenario, how the Fatima Center may be rationalizing their actions. 

Possible scenario. What I believe to be the most likely scenario is that this was a tactical decision to minimize damage (financial and otherwise) to Fr. Gruner and the Fatima Center. This would be some sort of false situation ethics where the end justifies the means rationalization of staying silent on this forgery, in hopes of navigating around this Vatican crime by clamoring for the release of "the rest" of the REAL Third Secret. The rationalization of staying silent would be that they are not absolutely 100% sure that it is a forgery (plausible deniability) and that the safest route would be to give the benefit of the doubt to John Paul II, who signed off on this Vatican June 26, 2000 document.  

In short, the two-document theory was a tactic, a pretext, to avoid confrontation with the Vatican and the imagined damage to their apostolate if they engaged in such a confrontation. No Fatima witness or expert had ever suggested prior to 2000 that the Third Secret was two separate documents, because there was only one document in an envelope sealed with wax by Sister Lucy. The entire Third Secret was all in that envelope. The fact that the two-document theory suddenly comes into existence post-June 26, 2000 by the imagination of the Fatima Center speaks of convenience, not fact. 

I believe this scenario to be the most likely, especially with the apparent policy decision that the Fatima Center writers must tow the line and endorse/defend the two-document theory in their articles. I have yet to see one of their writers poke holes in this theory. I cannot believe that all the Fatima Center writers personally endorse the two-document theory. This lemming-like unity in the face of a proven lie (a professional forensic expert, Robert Kullman, saying it is a forgery and the clearly visible difference in handwriting style between envelopes and alleged text) indicates to me that this is imposed on the Fatima Center writers, and perhaps is even a condition for employment. Would this be a decision handed down by a board of directors? Just asking. 

The fact that they have not allowed an alternative argument (based on real evidence that could win in a court of law, i.e., Robert Kullman's expert analysis of the forgery) among their writers or in their publications speaks to me that they are afraid of this debate because some of them know they are in error and have misled the Catholic faithful. 

Immoral implications of this scenario. The end cannot justify the means, you cannot commit a sin in the rationalization that good will come of it. That is situation ethics, condemned by the Church. Recall the statement (I believe by St. Augustine) that if we were given the chance of saving the whole world by committing a venial sin, this would not be permissible because it is against God's law.  

Cardinal John Henry Newman expresses the same truth: 

"The Church aims, not at making a show, but at doing a work. She regards this world, and all that is in it, as a mere shadow, as dust and ashes, compared with the value of one single soul. She holds that, unless she can, in her own way, do good to souls, it is no use her doing anything; she holds that it were better for sun and moon to drop from heaven, for the earth to fail, and for all the many millions who are upon it to die of starvation in extremest agony, so far as temporal affliction goes, than that one soul, I will not say, should be lost, but should commit one single venial sin, should tell one wilful untruth, though it harmed no one, or steal one poor farthing without excuse." (Difficulties of Anglicans, lecture 8, available at www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume1/

Regarding the probable rationalization that the Fatima Center was not 100% certain that the document was a forgery so it was OK to move forward as if it were authentic, that does not hold water either. Prior to the Fatima Center's lockstep adoption of the two-document theory, by the fall of 2000 they had in their hands a report written by a professional forensics expert (Robert Kullman) who did not believe that the letter attributed to Sister Lucy in the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document was Sister Lucy's handwriting. I suggested that Fr. Gruner seek their own professional handwriting analysis to verify this conclusion, but they did not do so.  

Did the Fatima Center with intention ignore Robert Kullman's conclusion and NOT seek a professional handwriting analysis because they had already chosen a course of action and did not want to be influenced by such an analysis, that they did not want to become morally certain that the Vatican document was a forgery and be compelled to scrap their two-document fantasy?   

A statement by Chris Martenson seems also to apply to the Fatima Center: "You don't want to know what the results are going to be, so you don't test. It's a fairly deliberate policy." (watch video) 


The Fatima Center doubles down on their error 

With the display of the Third Secret envelopes by Cardinal Bertone on Italian TV (get a copy of Christopher Ferrara's book The Secret Still Hidden to see the picture of the Third Secret envelope for yourself) we had another definitive piece of evidence that Sister Lucy's authentic handwriting on the envelopes was different than the handwriting in the document alleged to be the "Third Secret." You will find that the capital "S" on the Third Secret envelopes are all print style (as are all the samples of Sister Lucy's handwriting we examined over a 62 year period), but all the capital "S" in the Vatican's June 26, 2000 are cursive style. 

For him who has eyes to see… (Mark 8: 18).  

To not make an about-face and admit that their two-document theory is now absolutely proven false indicates an obstinacy similar to the behavior of the corrupt sex-abuse enabling bishops: These corrupt bishops would spin every word to cover their own mistakes and sins. These bishops displayed a desire to save face, not to arrive at the truth.  

At this point, the Fatima Center is doubling down on their error, remaining silent in the face of decisive evidence: The handwriting on the REAL Third Secret envelopes is not the same as the alleged "Third Secret" released by the Vatican on June 26, 2000. 

You can't have a valid two-document theory, when one of the documents is a forgery. 

The Fatima Center could have admitted that they were mistaken at this point in the face of additional evidence. What was needed was a dispassionate, objective analysis of the evidence. 

Sadly, this did not occur and the errors of the Fatima Center have multiplied. I recall the quote by St. Augustine: “they love their own opinion not because it is true, but because it is their own.”  (St. Augustine, Confessions, Book 12, Chapter 25)

Is intellectual pride preventing the Fatima Center from making a course correction? 


Pope John Paul II was a victim of a deception, but no one cared enough to show him how he had been deceived by an impostor "Sister Lucy" 

Remember, a fake Sister Lucy was running around for years prior to 2000, promoting errors and a false narrative of the Fatima mesage. Did anyone care enough to warn Pope John Paul II about this? Why was a concerted effort not made to expose this impostor "Sister Lucy"? 

Consider how truly selfish this omission was. I believe it was a lack of authentic Christian charity to not warn John Paul II that he was the victim of a great conspiracy (the endgame of the fake Sister Lucy that surfaced years ago is now apparent, as this impostor has now fulfilled her most important role, to deceive John Paul II and thereby the entire world by promoting a phony "Third Secret" and a false Fatima narrative).  Had the fake Sister Lucy been exposed in the early 1990s, had this forgery of the Third Secret been exposed, do you not think that John Paul II would have had his eyes opened?   

We know from the Bayside message that Cardinal Casaroli had been influencing John Paul II not to listen to the Bayside message, as John Paul II had received the Bayside messages into his own hands and was reading them. We know this from the Bayside message of June 18, 1987: "And now, My child, I must ask that you write, that you all write, to Cardinal Casaroli, who is influencing the Holy Father to not listen to this message." (Our Lady, June 18, 1987; listen) 

Again, do you really think an impostor Sister Lucy was sent to Pope John Paul II to endorse a genuine Third Secret? Of course not. 

Had John Paul II been given proof of the conspiracy to falsify the REAL Third Secret and the role of the fake Sister Lucy, this may have been the historical turning point when the REAL Third Secret would finally have been revealed to the world. 

A lack of faith, a lack of courage

I believe a lack of faith in God's power, a lack of trust in Our Lady, and a lack of generosity when asked to put down a bunt for the good of the Catholic Church prevented the Fatima Center from exposing the June 26, 2000 forgery. 

By the grace of God the Fatima Center could have been instrumental in winning this battle. But they had to trust, sacrifice and put themselves on the line for the truth. This did not happen at the critical time when Pope John Paul II was in power, who was definitely a friend of Fatima and also a friend of Bayside. 

Furthermore, the principle of double effect would not apply because the Fatima Center is not merely tolerating the evil of the forgery, but actually endorsing it as authentic by proposing the two-document theory. Remember, too, that they refused to cooperate in a further forensic handwriting analysis by not sharing copies of additional Sister Lucy handwriting samples that were in their possession. They did not conduct even their own professional analysis (or, at least, it has not been made public). Certainly, if they were confident that the Vatican's June 26, 2000 document was authentic they would not have feared sharing their resources to further examine this questionable document. Since the Fatima Center is advancing the theory that there are two Third Secret documents, they are saying there are two authentic documents. But the June 26, 2000 document is a proven forgery.  

Setting themselves up for yet another forgery

And what if, in the future, the Vatican "admits, concedes" that there was a second document and then releases a second forgery? Checkmate.  

It is intellectually dishonest for the Fatima Center to propose the two-document Third Secret theory as it is not based on physical evidence, nor on Fatima witnesses who have actually read the REAL Third Secret. We wrote an article years ago pointing out the absurdity of this two-document theory. 


The Fatima Center compounds their errors and fails to discuss other possible explanations 

Since June 26, 2000, the Fatima Center have compounded their errors, trying to fit the square peg of the two-documentary theory into the round hole of Fatima evidence. Some of their work is downright sloppy, such as Fr. Paul Kramer's second book, The Devil's Final Battle, Book 2. I will briefly touch on only a few of the many problems I found. The page numbers correspond to Fr. Kramer's book. 

Two general topics in the Third Secret according to Fr. Schweigl, not two different documents

Fr. Kramer appeals to the 1952 testimony of Fr. Schweigl as "proof" that there are two Third Secret documents. Fr. Schweigl was sent on a mission by the Vatican to question Sister Lucy on the Fatima message. On his return to the Russicum Father Schweigl confided the following to one of his colleagues who questioned him on the Third Secret: 

"I cannot reveal anything of what I learned at Fatima concerning the third Secret, but I can say that it has two parts: one concerns the Pope. The other, logically (although I must say nothing) would have to be the continuation of the words: In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved." Regarding the part that concerns the Pope, I had asked (our witness continues): “The present Pope or the next one?” To this question Father Schweigl made no reply. 

You can read more about Fr. Schweigl's mission in the book, The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, by Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity (pp. 337-339).  

The following are statements by Fr. Kramer that we find issue with: 

"We recall here Father Schweigl’s testimony that there are indeed two parts to the Secret." (Fr. Kramer, p. 167).  

"a document (per Pius XII’s emissary Father Schweigl) that “concerns the Pope,” published in 2000, and another document, not yet published, that contains “the logical continuation of the words: ‘In Portugal, the dogma of the Faith will always be preserved etc.’” (Fr. Kramer, p. 176) 

Here, Fr. Kramer is forcing his false interpretation upon Fr. Schweigl's words to infer that there are two physical documents of the Third Secret. Actually, Fr. Schweigl was talking about two different topics in the Third Secret, not two different documents.  

In the same way you can say that an essay has three different parts (an introduction, body and conclusion), this is no way means that the writer has three different documents; there are three parts in one essay. So too, the REAL Third Secret consists in two parts (two topics), one document. 

For Fr. Kramer to put forward this opinion without offering alternative possible explanations shows a lack of objectivity and thoroughness.  

Another explanation is more likely

Fr. Kramer also writes, "Is it not entirely likely, then, that the obscure vision—a 'safer' part of the Third Secret—was written down in the notebook, whereas the concrete explanation of the vision in the words of the Virgin Herself—whose impact was quite terrible—had to be sealed in the envelope that Sister Lucy placed inside the notebook? There seems to be no other sensible explanation for why Sister Lucy, in response to the Bishop of Fatima’s order to write down the Third Secret, provided him with both a sealed envelope and a notebook." (p. 167, emphasis mine) 

Fr. Kramer seems to lack imagination on this one, because I can immediately think of two possible explanations for the mention of a "notebook" in association with the sealed Third Secret: 

#1 possibility (in the convent):  In a convent of sinners and not angels, the possibility of prying eyes and curiosity getting the better of Sister Lucy's superior or other religious sisters would make it prudent for her to hide the Third Secret, until such time as it was transported out of the convent. Hiding the wax-sealed envelope inside a notebook would make it much more difficult to find. This would be a prudent measure. 

#2 possibility (on route for delivery to the bishop): The Third Secret was enclosed in a wax-sealed envelope for security. When Sister Lucy was to transport the envelope, she could have considered using a notebook as a simple and safe way of transporting the Third Secret envelope in order to: (1) prevent prying questions on her way to meeting the bishop (as Sister Lucy traveled to meet with the bishop, can you imagine a curious fellow traveler asking, "what is in the envelope?"); (2) to protect the Third Secret envelope from water damage, rain, to protect the wax-seal from being broken; (3) a notebook would be a readily available protection to transport the Third Secret. Sister Lucy, as a religious sister vowed to poverty, did not have the option of a combination or key-secured briefcase.  

Think: If you were transporting an extremely important document ("top secret" level of importance) would you just put it in your pocket, or would you try to protect it from being stolen, damaged or read in route to your destination? 

Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity destroys the two-document theory: writes that Sister Lucy put the Third Secret envelope in her notebook for transport

(NOTE: Full disclosure.  As much as I am accusing Fr. Kramer of some sloppiness in reporting the facts, in my haste to write this article I almost failed to include this very important item which I found when I went back to Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity's The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III): 

Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity helps to put yet another nail in the coffin of the two-document theory. He writes that "Sister Lucy would entrust this envelope to neither the Post Office nor to any messenger. She waited several months for the opportune occasion to see that it reached Bishop da Silva in all dignity and safety." (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 49). 

On June 17, 1944, Sister Lucy had this opportunity. The Archbishop of Gurza, Spain, Archbishop Manuel Maria Ferrara da Silva, came on behalf of Bishop da Silva to receive the Third Secret envelope from Sister Lucy (Sister Lucy was now a Dorothean sister in Tuy, Spain. The Third Secret had to be brought to Bishop da Silva in Portugal). The archbishop travelled with several priest companions, and Sister Lucy traveled accompanied by one of her religious sisters, with both groups meeting up in Asilo Fonseca, Spain: "She was accompanied by one of her sisters, who of course was ignorant of the true purpose of her meeting (as were the priests accompanying the Bishop of Gurza). They crossed the Minho and arrived at Asilo Fonseca around noon. The seer discreetly handed the Bishop of Gurza the notebook in which she had slipped the envelope containing the Secret." (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 49, emphasis mine). 

Falsely asserting a level of certainty that isn't there

Another overreach in Fr. Kramer's book is his contention that the June 26, 2000 Vatican "vision" was necessary to explain the Third Secret, just as Our Lady of Fatima verified that the vision of hell, was hell. He writes that an unpublished document explaining this vision "rises to the level of certainty": 

"Furthermore, the probability of Our Lady having provided a detailed explanation of the Third Secret vision rises to the level of certainty when one considers the erroneous “interpretation” offered by Sodano/Ratzinger/Bertone—i.e. that the killing of a Pope and many other members of the hierarchy by soldiers is merely the failed assassination attempt on Pope John Paul II in 1981." (Fr. Kramer, p. 171, emphasis mine) 

Asserting that there exists a previously unpublished text that explains the phony June 26, 2000 vision that "rises to the level of certainty" is absurd.  

By latching on to a forgery, a phony vision, and expecting to be guided to truth by it, such a person has lost his bearing. If you start with a false premise (that the June 26, 2000 document is authentic), you will arrive at false conclusions ("it rises to the level of certainty" that a document exists that explains that phony vision). 

Jacinta had the only authentic Third Secret visions

What Fr. Kramer omits to tell the reader (and many readers already know this) is that Jacinta of Fatima had several authentic visions concerning the Third Secret. She was the only one of the three children of Fatima to be given this grace. She was describing a suffering Pope. After Jacinta had one of these Third Secret visions, she asked Sister Lucy, "is he the one Our Lady told us about in the Secret?" Lucy replied, "Yes, he is."

So there are several uncontested visions about the REAL Third Secret of Fatima by Jacinta, and the world is presented with a false vision in their place? Can nobody see that this is a switch and replace tactic? 

The world is being deceived, and without Our Lady of the Roses guidance we are going to be, to the last man and woman, deceived. 

During which papacy was the entire Catholic Church decoupled from the past, from tradition, and entered on a modernist track? The papacy of Pope Paul VI. If you could go back in time and advise one Pope, would you not go back to Pope Paul VI and tell him, "don't allow any changes"? 

So it should be no surprise that it was Pope Paul VI that Jacinta saw, the Pope of the REAL Third Secret. 

Sister Lucy stated that the spiritual chastisement mentioned in the REAL Third Secret had already begun, during the reign of Pope Paul VI

We can also determine, by Sister Lucy's words, that there was a time-sensitive element to the REAL Third Secret. And during the papacy of Pope Paul VI, Sister Lucy stated that the chastisement mentioned in the Third Secret had already begun: 

"We know moreover, that Sister Lucy confided in the 1970s, that 'the chastisement predicted by Our Lady in the Third Secret had already begun'." (Frère François de Marie des Anges, Fatima: Tragedy and Triumph, pp. 237-238; Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity, The Whole Truth About Fatima: The Third Secret, Vol. III, p. 640). 

If the Third Secret referred to Pope John Paul II (as the phony Sister Lucy asserted), why did the REAL Sister Lucy say that the chastisement mentioned in the Third Secret had already begun in the 1970s? 

Furthermore, we know Pope John XXIII seemed to indicate a time-sensitive element in the Third Secret when he stated, "this does not concern the years of my pontificate." How would he know that unless a specific date was mentioned, and/or a specific Pope was mentioned? Remember, Our Lady of Fatima was very specific that World War II would begin during the reign of "Pius XI." There was no ambiguity. Why would there be ambiguity in the REAL Third Secret? 

No, the Third Secret was crystal clear and simple. In the REAL Third Secret a date was mentioned (1972). A specific Pope was mentioned (Pope Paul VI). He was replaced by an impostor for several years of his pontificate. We have corroborating evidence from numerous photos, witnesses, and a solemn Church exorcism in Switzerland. Pope Paul VI was drugged and kept a virtual prisoner in the Vatican for years. By not releasing the REAL Third Secret in 1960 and not listening to Our Lady of the Roses warnings to know what was truly going on in the Vatican and failing to take necessary action, this deception enabled the great apostasy to break upon the Catholic Church and the world in full ferocity. 

As Our Lady of the Roses warned, "Satan, Lucifer in human form, entered into Rome in the year 1972. He cut off the rule, the role of the Holy Father, Pope Paul VI. Lucifer has controlled Rome and continues this control now." (Our Lady, September 7, 1978) 

Now there is the worthy subject of the REAL Third Secret of Fatima. 


The Fatima evidence will not conform to the false two-document theory 

Fr. Kramer did not discuss Jacinta's authentic visions of the Third Secret, as documented by Brother Michael of the Holy Trinity (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 713-720). Fr. Kramer did not discuss Sister Lucy's 1970s statement that "the chastisement predicted by Our Lady in the Third Secret had already begun." 

Fr. Kramer, again, failed to discuss alternative explanations. Why? Is it because these facts undermine the Fatima Center's two-document theory? 

The reality is, the authentic Fatima evidence will not bend to this false two-document theory.  

Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity explicitly writes that Sister Lucy's notebook was used to transport the Secret; the notebook did not contain a separate Third Secret document. Remember, the witnesses to the Third Secret never once mentioned that there were two documents. This theory only came into existence post-June 26, 2000.  

With the evidence of forgery from demonstrably different handwriting (Third Secret envelopes vs. alleged "Third Secret" text put out by the Vatican), this theory fails when tested. 

The Fatima Center really stepped in it. 


The Emperor's New Clothes 

I truly believe they are kicking the can down the road to avoid blowback to their apostolate, avoiding confrontation against the obvious forgery. The fact that such a forgery could be foisted upon the world by the Vatican indicates a great conspiracy within the highest realms of the Catholic hierarchy, and points to the subject matter of the REAL Third Secret.  

The Fatima Center has boarded a Titanic of their own making, the two-document theory. Numerous pages have been written by various Fatima Center writers describing in great detail, the emperor's new clothes. 

The pictures of the Third Secret envelopes held by Cardinal Sodano are, of themselves, sufficient to nuke the Fatima Center's false theory, the two-document theory.  



Enabling a forgery by silence 

Furthermore, among the nine ways of being accessory to another's sin is silence. To not call out the forgery that is clearly visible and already forensically labeled as such, makes the Fatima Center enablers and co-conspirators of the Vatican's gravely sinful conspiracy to falsify the REAL Third Secret. 

The Fatima Center is implicitly saying "yes" to all the evil consequences that will result from their not exposing this forgery to the world. That is what the sin of omission entails. 

I can never remember the Fatima Center promoting error before, not until now. 

The incalculable damage of allowing this Vatican deceit and forgery to infect the whole Catholic Church and the world defies the imagination.  

What a major setback. 

Was this damage to the whole world the price exacted by the Fatima Center to avoid personal and collective financial damage to their apostolate, to avoid damage to reputations? To avoid being ridiculed? Or was it fear of some sort of censure from the Vatican?

The Fatima Center put their own perceived material welfare ahead of the good of the entire Church and the world. 

And this is a repeat of why the Third Secret of Fatima has not been released to this day: Good but weak men and women in the Church are not willing to sacrifice themselves fully for the truth. When the big test arrives, we all fail. There is always some exchange to promote the truth, something that we must personally give up. 

Remember Our Lord's words: 

"If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not carry his cross and come after me, cannot be my disciple." (St. Luke 14: 26-27) 

Cowardice paralyzes the Catholic Church at this time. 


And if the REAL Third Secret was stolen in 1969 and destroyed? 

And aren't we all making a big assumption, that the physical text of the Third Secret still exists? I know, we take this for granted, that it has to still exist. After all, God wouldn't allow it to be destroyed, right? But what if, after the Vatican refused to obey God and release the Third Secret in 1960, God withdrew His protection for this great act of disobedience? In August 1969, the Italian police reported that Third Secret had been STOLEN in a robbery of the papal apartment, which the Vatican denied. If this truly took place, it was the perfect opportunity to steal the REAL Third Secret (and destroy it) and replace it with a fake document that would be released to the world by the Vatican on June 26, 2000. 

In that case, only the real Sister Lucy would be left to tell the Third Secret. If Sister Lucy was isolated and silenced, without heavenly intervention, knowledge of the complete Third Secret would die with her. 

The ironic thing is that if the REAL Third Secret was stolen in 1969 and replaced with the bishop-in-white-being-shot-with-bows-and-arrows document, then Vatican officials are being honest when they say there is nothing more to release.   

Checkmate again. 


Real physical evidence vs. propaganda and hearsay 

As we have demonstrated, there is sufficient evidence to disprove the two-document theory:

1) The handwriting on the Third Secret envelopes and the Vatican's June 26, 2000 "Third Secret" are not the same, and have been labeled a forgery by a forensic expert;

2) Sister Lucy stated in the 1970s that "the chastisement predicted by Our Lady in the Third Secret had already begun" (thus disproving the theory that the Third Secret was about the papacy of Pope John Paul II, or about an attempt upon his life);

3) The research by Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity that "The seer discreetly handed the Bishop of Gurza the notebook in which she had slipped the envelope containing the Secret." (The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, p. 49). 

Are not the errors of the Fatima Center the result of relying on human efforts alone, instead of accepting God's help offered through another authentic Marian apparition, Our Lady of the Roses? 

Was not the Catholic hierarchy's contempt for Our Lady at Fatima, the seers and the Fatima message the reason why the Church is in such chaos? Are not the Catholic hierarchy, priests and laity repeating the same mistake in despising Bayside? 

How do you think that will turn out? 


Miracles attest to the divine origin of the Bayside apparitions 

Remember it is the Bayside apparitions and message, not the Fatima Center or any other Catholic apostolate, whom God has spotlighted with an explosion of miracles in our day, to open spiritually blind eyes and deaf ears: "These hearts of Our pastors have been hardened. Their ears are clogged, My child; they do not listen. Their eyes are blinded, not seeing the miracles We send to open them. Pastors, do you reject the Message from Heaven because you fear it? Or do you prefer to ignore it because it will expose your error?" (Our Lady, October 6, 1975) 

We have the words of the former Chancellor of the Brooklyn Diocese, Msgr. Otto Garcia, "If the amount of cures that are claimed were true, Lourdes and Fatima are nothing, compared to Bayside." 

I can attest, as a witness to numerous Bayside miracles and my four years as a worker in Our Lady of the Roses Shrine office in New York, that the Bayside miracles are more numerous than even Msgr. Otto Garcia is aware of. Some of these cures are labeled as medical "miracles" by doctors themselves. These doctors are experts on what is medically possible and impossible, yet the Brooklyn Diocese will not listen to anything contrary to their erroneous opinions.  

The sin of pride in full, ugly bloom. 


By the grace of God, Veronica Lueken was an expert on the REAL Third Secret, and was given insights only Our Lady could offer 

There are many things that human reason cannot attain to, especially when perhaps all of the true witnesses to the REAL Third Secret are no longer alive. That is why the Bayside apparitions are such a gift to the world, as Veronica Lueken truly was a modern-day seer as were the three children of Fatima. 

Veronica was able to convey to the world, from Our Lady Herself, many insights into the REAL Third Secret and several corrections of the Fatima experts who came to wrong conclusions. One such correction from Our Lady of the Roses was of Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity, who in his Whole Truth of Fatima: Vol. 3 dismissed the letter that Mother Godinho wrote to Pope Pius XII. In this letter, Mother Godinho mentioned that Jacinta wanted to pass along to the Pope a very important message. The Bayside apparitions clarify that Mother Godinho was indeed told the REAL Third Secret of Fatima by Jacinta, but that Mother Godinho did not fully and faithfully transmit this information in its entirety. In fact, she omitted most of what she was told by Jacinta. But the Bayside message does indicate several items in Mother Godinho's letter to Pope Pius XII that were authentic (such as the year "1972" being included in the REAL Third Secret). 

Several Third Secret insights from Veronica (in addition to the Bayside apparitions)

I can recall three major insights from Veronica on the Third Secret. This was in addition to the Bayside vigil messages: 

1) While I was working at the New York office, we asked Veronica a question of when satan entered the Church, in 1960 or in 1972. Veronica gave the most telling reply: Although satan was active in the Church in 1960, satan entered the Church in 1972 and she was not allowed to say any more because it dealt with the Third Secret of Fatima. 

2) I recall one of the Shrine workers telling me that Veronica had suggested that we read the "Neues Europa Third Secret".  I was puzzled by this, because I had recently read Bro. Michael of the Holy Trinity's book on the Third Secret, The Whole Truth of Fatima, Vol. III, and he had rejected the "Neues Europa Third Secret", saying it was not authentic, that it was too long.  

But Veronica's encouragement to pay attention to "Neues Europa" never left my mind. About ten years later (when the Vatican came out with the forged June 26, 2000 "Third Secret"), in my research I stumbled upon the fact that Bayside, Akita, and "Neues Europa" shared some of the exact same sentences. I thought that this was too much to be a coincidence, and "Neues Europa" was years before Akita and could not possibly have known that authentic message. So some parts of "Neues Europa" were authentic (not all of it). I made a comparison between the Bayside messages and "Neues Europa" and several sentences they shared in common. One sentence, "What is rotten will fall, and what falls must not be retained" was repeated at least 73 times in the Bayside message. Another sentence shared in common with Akita and "Neues Europa" was "Cardinals will oppose Cardinals and Bishops will oppose Bishops. Satan will enter into their very midst" which was repeated at least 24 times in the Bayside message. Other sentences common to "Neues Europa" were also repeated multiple times in the Bayside message. 

It is reported that Cardinal Ottaviani (who had read the REAL Third Secret) is credited to have passed this information along to "Neues Europa", apparently wanting to transmit the Third Secret to the world in obedience to Our Lady's command to reveal it in 1960. 

So the Bayside message not only told us the essence of the Third Secret ("How I warned and warned that satan would enter into the highest realms of the hierarchy in Rome. The Third Secret, My child, is that satan would enter into My Son's Church." - Our Lady, May 13, 1978), it also was giving us entire sentences from the REAL Third Secret. The Bayside message was sort of the Rosetta Stone to unlocking, discovering authentic lines of the REAL Third Secret. I would estimate that we know about half of the REAL Third Secret, line by line, because of this discovery. 

3) Also, one of the Shrine workers made a statement to Veronica that, wouldn't it be marvelous when the Third Secret is one day revealed. Veronica responded and said that, for the Baysiders, the revelation of the Third Secret would not provide anything new that Our Lady of the Roses had not already told us many times in the Bayside message. (What a revelation!) 

So, in a sense, Veronica was stating that the Third Secret in its entirety was in the Bayside messages. This statement by Veronica may give some insight into this June 18, 1986 message: "I wish at this time, My children, to repeat again the need to write, to speak, to meet with the Holy Father in Rome, and plead with him to have Lucy come forward and tell the Third Secret word for word, as I give to you each evening on My appearances upon the grounds of Bayside, and Flushing Meadows." (Our Lady, June 18, 1986; listen) 

"The Third Secret … as I give to you each evening".  Is Our Lady saying that in every Bayside message, each and every one of them, there is a piece of the Third Secret? It sure seems to me that this is what Our Lady is saying. 


Bayside to the rescue! 

Every Sunday we recite in the Gloria, "You alone are the holy One." God alone do we worship; God alone is worthy of our complete trust. As Our Lady of the Roses warned us, "The greatest lesson man will learn in the days ahead is: should he place his trust in another man, he is doomed for disappointment and sorrow. You will always keep your eyes turned upward and say, my Jesus, my confidence!" (November 19, 1977) 

This is so true. We are all sinners, and it is just a matter of time when even our most trusted leaders and priests will fail us, at least on some point. 

I can say by experience, that the only voice that has never failed me over a lifetime is Our Lady of the Roses. Furthermore, it seems that the only one left standing in the Church who isn't spouting some sort of nonsense or deceived in some way is Our Lady of the Roses. 

And that brings up another powerful statement by Our Lady, "The only guide you will have now are the messages from Heaven, given through various seers, and other miraculous manifestations from the Eternal Father to man." (November 24, 1979) 

Everyone on earth is personally fallible, everyone is a sinner, all have been deceived in one way or another without exception. 

Acknowledging this truth, why is it so difficult to trust Our Lady? 

Lack of faith in many Catholics; trusting faith in some non-Catholics

But God will not force His graces upon people; He will have sons and daughters, not slaves. He gives conditions to the receptions of His miracles, too. Jesus required faith as a prerequisite in many of His public miracles. Joey Lomangino, promoter of the Garabandal apparitions, was required to show faith in Our Lady of the Roses, by obeying a simple command to bring lilacs to Our Lady of the Roses Shrine in Bayside, New York. That simple act of faith and obedience would have granted him the miracle of seeing again. But it was false friends who discouraged him. 

Joey Lomangino, a Catholic, did not have faith in Bayside and was not cured. 

A different outcome occurred with the reluctant leper Naaman who, when asked to bathe in the River Jordan by the prophet Eliseus, replied that they had better rivers in Syria, why bathe in the Jordan? (4 Kings (2 Kings) 5:12) But Naaman's servants pleaded with their master Naaman to obey the prophet Eliseus, and bathe seven times in the Jordan. Naaman overcame his prejudice (through the faith and persistence of his servants), and was miraculously cured of leprosy. The pagan obeyed, and was cured. 

Jesus Himself reminded His disciples of this fact: "And there were many lepers in Israel in the time of Eliseus the prophet: and none of them was cleansed but Naaman the Syrian." (Luke 4: 27) Jesus seemed to be emphasizing the lack of faith in the Israelites at that time. 

In the United States, only one bishop acknowledged to Veronica Lueken that he believed in the Bayside messages, that the apparitions were authentic (but he asked Veronica to keep his name anonymous).  

Bishop Matthew - NigeriaThroughout the world, there are only a few bishops from Nigeria (Bishop Matthew, pictured to the right, June 18, 2016) who attended the Bayside vigils. Some Carmelite nuns, a handful of Franciscans and priests have publicly professed belief in Bayside, in the whole world.  

The Catholic response to Our Lady of the Roses has been minimal. 

But Our Lady of the Roses has reached out to the whole world, not just Catholics. Our Lady spoke (in locution) with non-Catholic President Ronald Reagan, that he not allow the evil (communism) to go forth from the shores of Nicaragua. He listened and obeyed (Read more). 

How wondrous are God's ways, Who extends His gifts to all if they only have faith in Him and obey! 

By God's design, He has arranged all things such that no one can glory in His sight (1 Corinthians 1: 29). He has revealed His plans to those of simple, humble faith. God will have humility in His Church, one way or another: 

"But the foolish things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the wise; and the weak things of the world hath God chosen, that he may confound the strong. And the base things of the world, and the things that are contemptible, hath God chosen, and things that are not, that he might bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his sight." (1 Corinthians 1: 27: 29)


"I say this evening, as your God, that on that date [1972], as promised at Fatima, satan entered My Church upon earth. He brought with him his agents—and satan himself, the deceiver of all mankind—sat in on Vatican II and maneuvered all the outsiders to come in and distort My doctrines and distort the truth.
     "At Fatima, My Mother tried to warn of this coming event, but who cared to listen? Who was interested in listening? Not those who were years—earth-years away. All Heaven was crying in that time, for the Eternal Father had made it known how His message would be received. To this day, to your earth-year of 1986, you have not been given, My children, the full secrets as given to the children at Fatima.
     "Therefore, I must make it known at this time to you. If you are perceiving and interested in My Church upon earth, I do not have to explain Myself too fully; for you will already know of the chaos that satan has wrought when he entered My Church. And why did he enter, you say? This I want it made known, My child—and you will not be affrighted as you are now—you will speak out for Me and My Mother, and the Eternal Father in the Holy Spirit; you will speak out and say that satan is in the Church, My Church upon earth. He knows his time is growing short.
     "And if you think you have seen carnage now already in the Church, the worst is yet to come, unless you follow the rules, given by My Mother many years ago, of prayer, atonement, and sacrifice. By your example you may be able to save others. For soon there will come upon you the great Chastisement. It comes in two parts, My child and My children: the Third World War and, also, the Ball of Redemption. These can no longer be delayed. For the good seem to go about their way, perhaps pridefully. We do not seek to accuse or place a stigma on any, but some may pridefully sit back and let others go forth and make these sacrifices and prayers and penance. Because they have become smug, or because they have not the grace to understand, that once you receive this grace much is expected of you. You must even work harder to save your brothers and sisters.
     "My child and My children, this message will not be greeted gleefully by your clergy. But since Lucy has been silenced, it is necessary that the world knows the truth. I will also send this message out through one more seer in the world, and if it is not abided by I have nothing to do but to allow the Chastisement to fall upon mankind.” - Jesus, June 18, 1986 (listen)



Third Secret of Fatima:

VIDEO: "Third Secret" released by Vatican on June 26, 2000 is a FORGERY

The REAL Third Secret of Fatima explains the chaos

Evidence of a fabrication: Sister Lucy's handwriting notably different in document released by Vatican as the "third secret"

Evidence of a fabrication: World-famous forensic expert believes Vatican's released "third secret" is not in Sister Lucy's authentic handwriting

Sister Lucy's real handwriting, displayed before millions of viewers

Chief Exorcist Father Amorth: Padre Pio Knew the Third Secret: 'It is Satan who has been introduced into the bosom of the Church and within a very short time will come to rule a false Church.'

Sister Lucy confided, in the 1970s, that "the chastisement predicted by Our Lady in the Third Secret had already begun"

Writing expert gives two reasons for radical changes in handwriting

The Third Secret Envelopes Expose a Vatican Forgery and a Vatican Lie about the Release Date of the Third Secret

Fatima’s Third Secret—More Relevant than Ever?

1989 letter quoted in Vatican's 'third secret' document also a forgery

Third Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so"

Evidence of a fabrication: The REAL Third Secret of Fatima specifically mentioned the year 1972, as Jacinta revealed to Mother Godinho

Two historical facts cast aside by the Fatima experts

Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached


Third Secret was to be revealed no later than 1960, "because the Blessed Virgin wishes it so"


Fr. Alonso, official achivist of Fatima: The REAL Third Secret of Fatima warned of apostasy in the Church

Cardinal Oddi on the REAL Third Secret of Fatima: "The Blessed Virgin was alerting us against the apostasy in the Church"

Third Secret tells of a spiritual chastisement: loss of faith, faltering and punishment of the pastors, diabolical disorientation

Cardinal Oddi's hypothesis on the REAL Third Secret: "Let me advance a hypothesis: that the Third Secret of Fatima pre-announces something terrible the Church has done"

Father Alonso's last article on the Third Secret

Third Secret: "Words" of Our Lady, not a vision

Flaws in the "two-document" Third Secret theory

Which Third Secret meets the litmus test?



Pope Paul VI: The Pope of the REAL Third Secret

More evidence of a fabrication: Jacinta's vision of the Holy Father, "the poor little one," was Pope Paul VI

Jacinta told Mother Godinho the REAL Third Secret, but...

The Deception of the Century - the Impostor Pope Paul VI  

Warnings from Beyond: A Swiss exorcism reveals existence of an impostor to Pope Paul VI

Why Pope Paul VI is the Pope mentioned in the REAL Third Secret of Fatima


Will the real Pope Paul VI please stand up?

Consecration of Russia:

The REAL Sister Lucy has repeatedly stated that Russia must be consecrated by name


Besiege the Pope to consecrate Russia to Our Lady

The “conversion of Russia”: what does it really mean?


The meaning of the "consecration" of Russia

Our Lady of the Roses warns: Russia has not been consecrated properly; Pope John Paul II must consecrate Russia, not the world

Sister Lucy:

Sister Lucy and her impostor

A false "Sister Lucy" substituted for the true?

Sister Lucy was silenced


Sister Lucy talked about the "diabolical disorientation" in the Church as 1972 approached


A forgery to replace the REAL Third Secret; an impersonator to replace the REAL Sister Lucy



Email us:

| Home | Introduction | Bayside Messages | Directives from Heaven | Miracles & Cures | Veronica Lueken | Miraculous Photos |
Videos |