reply to post by JR MacBeth
Correct, revealing a prophecy after the fact is not greatly convincing.
It is well known that the Secret was supposed to be revealed in 1960 which would have certainly avoided future appearance of rewriting the prophecy
after the fact. The Vatican failed in 1960 and failed in 2000.
Possibly, the point would be to expose the Vatican's lack of faith and then to initiate a punishment that targets the Vatican for it's crimes and
for it's failure to respond to the Fatima message and the Bible messages. The Fatima message does speak about God sending a chastisement that
includes punishment through persecution of the Pope and of the Church, presenting a situation that will give the Pope "much to suffer." It's not
about turning the Pope into a martyr either, it's about punishment of the Church, the Bishops, Cardinals, and the Pope for their crimes committed
Assuming the Third Secret is from God, it could nonetheless be revealed completely at the initiation of the key events, and would still be a prophecy
of the future, with it's essence having already been revealed years earlier. So for instance, in the scenario of Russia becoming the seat of the next
Hitler, and the Pope then releasing a third Secret that deals with Russia, it would not be accurate to say the third Secret was rewritten simply
because reality suddenly matches the words of the Secret. The true test would involve matching the Secret to the information that had already been
revealed years beforehand. There is not much room for the Pope to maneuver without showing the truth of his intentions. The Secret can't suddenly
center around Iran or North Korea, or China or America. It's already been indicated to involve Russia, annihilation of nations, assassination of the
Pope by soldiers, martyrdom of Christians, natural disasters of Biblical proportions, famine, loss of faith in the Church. The absence of these
elements would make it obvious that funny play is involved with any future versions of the Third Secret released by the Vatican.
Yes hindsight is 20/20, but in a way, the gist of the Third Secret has been known since the 1940's. According to evidence, the third Secret
elaborates upon the events predicted in the 2nd secret, thus knowing the 2nd secret is to know the gist(but not the fine details) of the 3rd secret,
while also indicating that the 2nd secret is not as much about world war II as people think.
///What of poor Fr. Ferreira, the humble parish priest? Here we have a sincere and simple man, who knew these children, who knew the community, etc.
His opinion was that the whole thing was from Satan.///
In the beginning Lucia's mother is embarrassed by her daughter's claims, and brings Lucia to Fr. Ferreira in attempt to compel her to admit to lying
about it. If Lucia confesses to making it up, Fr. Ferreira is successful in his task. If she doesn't confess, he fails in his task. So the priest has
the choice to either a)admit he was wrong, b)decide Lucia is a liar and he
failed in his task to get her to admit to lying, c)take the lesser form of personal failure and blame it on Satan, d) be honest with himself, guard
against taking things personal, and carefully weigh the facts to determine whether or not the children are lying or being deceived.
Fr. Ferreira fails his task to get a confession from Lucia so he informs her she is being tricked by the Devil. In the first few appearances/months he
likely assumes the children are making up stories, which would have been a perfectly reasonable response without witnessing supernatural confirmation.
Fr. Ferreira tells Lucia:"Those who go about spreading such lies as you are doing will be judged and will go to hell if they are not true. More and
more people are being deceived by you."
Lucia's response: "If people who lie go to hell then I shall not go to hell, because I am not lying and I say only what I saw and what the Lady told
me. And the people go there because they want to; we do not tell them to go."
It's possible with such pointed interrogations, he started to take the children's refusal to back down as a personal offense.
After the mayor kidnaps the children, people blame Fr. Ferriera for being complicit in the act, the priest was forced to publish a letter in the
local newspaper to clear his name. His objectivity may have been compromised by then, by resentment over the whole situation.
///What would you think if YOU were the priest, and you asked the children to tell you the truth, and even offered them the seal of the confessional,
and they still refused to obey? ///
If the children refuse time after time to refuse to say they were lying, it could be because they were telling the truth.
///What about communion, from an Angel? I know that in the modern church today, anyone can handle and even mishandle the communion wafer, but back in
1916, there was an entirely different state of affairs.///
Sorry, I don't see a problem with Angel hands touching the communion wafer.
[edit on 31-5-2010 by Phantomfire707]